■;''> 


JJ-^jT 


LIBRA.RY 

OF  THE 

Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

BV  813  .J3  1812 
Janeway,  J.  J.  1774-1858. 
Letters  explaining  the 
Abrahamic  covenant 


'* 


x._,- 


Ct^ 


>     '   '\.     .rFi 


\ 


--^^. 


LETTERS 


EXPLAINING 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT, 


WITH  A  VIEW 

TO  ESTABUSH,  ON  THIS  BROAD  AND  ANCIENT  BASIS, 
THE  DIVINE  RIGHT 

INFANT  BAPTISM; 


THE  QUESTION  RELATIVE  TO  THE  MODE  OP  ADMINIS- 
TERING THIS  CHRISTIAN  ORDINANCE: 

ADDRESSED  TO  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  SECOND  PRESBY" 
TERIAN  CHURCH,  IN  PHILADELPHIA. 


BY  JACOB  J.  JANEWAY,  A.  M, 

JUNIOR  PASTOR  OP  SAID  CHURCH. 


THIL^ABELPHM: 

PRINTED  POR  THE  AUTHOR,  BY  J.  MAXWEII. 

June,  1812. 


DISTRICT  OF  PENNSYLVANIA,  to  wit. 
0*:t*4t4n,*       Be  I  r  REMEMBERED,  That  Oil  thc  sixth  (lay  of  June, 
5  J  in  the  thirty -sixth  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United 

SsEAL.  t  States  of  America,   A.  D.   1812,  Jacob   J.  Janeway, 
*  *  of  the  said  District,  hath  deposited   in  the   said    Office, 

********  the  Title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  he   claims  as  au- 
thor in  the  Words  following,  to  wit: — 

**  Letters  explaining  the  Abrahamic  Covenant,  with  a  view  to 
•*  establish,  on  this  inroad  and  ancient  basis,  the  divine  right  of  Infant 
**  Baptism;  and  the  Question  relative  to  the  Mode  of  Administering 
**  this  Christian  Ordinance:  addressed  to  the  Members  of  the  Second 
**  Presbyterian  Church,  in  Philadelphia.  By  Jacob  J.  Jane  way,  A.  M. 
**  Junior  Pastor  of  said  Church." 

In  Conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
intituled,  "An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing 
the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Propri- 
etors of  such  Copies  during  the  Times  therein  mentioned.*'  And  also 
to  the  Act,  entitled,  "  An  Act  supplementary  to  An  Act,  entitled, 
"  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing  the  Co- 
pies of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of 
such  Copies  during  the  Times  therein  mentioned,"  and  extending  the 
benefits  thereof  to  the  Arts  of  designing,  engraving,  and  etching  his- 
torical and  othev  Prints." 

D.  CALDWELL,  Clerk  of  the 

District  of  Pennsylvania. 


CONTENTS. 

Page 

Letter  I.  Introductory 1 

II.  Jlie   covenant    contains    spiritual 

blessings       11 

tlnd  external  blessings    -     -     -     -  28 

III.  General  observations  on  the  covenant  32 

Its  great  design -  34 

A  twofold  seed  contemplated     -    -  46 

IV.  TJie  covenant  perpetual   -    -     -    -      49 
V.  Gentile-believers  have  an  interest  in 

this  covenant 60 

VI.  Children  have  an  interest  in  this  cO' 

venant    -------^      74 

Objection     --------       94 

In  what  respects  the  Christian  sur- 
passes, in  spiritualitiff  the  Jewish 

dispensation 96 

Vn.  Duties  of  the  covenant^    -     .    _    .    i03 
This  covenant  and  the  covenant  of 
grace,  in  substance,  the  same     -    109 
VIII.  The  result:  Children  have  a  di- 
vine right  to  baptism  -    -    -     -    116 

IX.  The  subject  resumed  -----    128 

Baptism  a  seal  of  Mraham's  co- 
venant     -     -     -     --     -     -     -     12S 

Observations  on  the  nature  of  bap- 
tism   " 141 


CONTENTS. 

Letter  X.  Objections  answered    -    -    .  146 

1.  Incapacity  of  children    -    -     -  147 

2.  Silence  of  the  J\*ew  Testament  155 

3.  Source  of  proof  remote  -     -     -  162 
XI.  Objections  answered      -    -    -  t67 

4.  Positive  precept  and  express  ex- 
ample  wanting  ------  167 

1  Cor,  vii.  14.  explained      -     -     -  172 

5.  JVo  obligation  arises  from  in- 
fant baptism      ------  ±8B 

XII.  Mode    of  baptism      -     -    -     -  ±89 

Immersion  not  exclusive      -    -     -  191 

Presumptions  against  such  claims  i  91 

XUI.  The  question  fairly  stated    -     -     -  20S 

John^s  baptism  not  Christian    -     -  207 

Cases  of  aposto lie  baptism  examined  21 0 
XIV.  JVo  precept  in  favour  of  immersion 

as  an  exclusive  mode  -     -     -     -  229 
The  original  word,  baptize,  ex- 
amined    -----^--  230 
XV.  tin  inquiinf  answered      -     -     -    -  249 
Bom.  vi.  4  examined       -    -     -     -  253 
Mecapitulation       ----.-  258 
Import  of  baptism      -    -    -    .    -  260 
Conclusion  of  the  discussion    -    -  265 
XVI.  An  Address  to  parents    -    -    -    -  266 
XVII*  *ln  Mdr^s  to  baptised  youth  -    -  286 


LETTERS3  &c 


LETTER  I. 

Introductory. 

Christian  Brethren, 

Positive  ordinances  of  religion  are  sovereign 
appointments  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  church. 
Antecedently  to  their  institution,  the  actions  re- 
quired hy  them  may  be  indifferent  or  even  unlaw- 
ful; but  being  ordained,  they  become  as  really 
binding  on  conscience,  as  any  moral  precept. 
Enjoined  by  such  high  authority,  they  cannot  be 
disregarded,  without  involving  a  violation  of  that 
fundamental  principle  on  which  all  laws,  whether 
moral  or  positive,  rest:  viz.  the  obligation  of  a 
creacure  to  obey  the  will  of  his  Creator. 

No  pretence,  then,  of  a  high  degree  of  spiritu- 
ality in  divine  worship,  can  release  any  from  the 
duty  of  observing  all  the  positive  institutions  of 
the  Christian  church;  nor  screen  those  who^  for 

B 


%  ^  BETTER  1. 

this,  or  any  other  reason,  disregard  them,  from 
the  guilt  of  acting  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  God. 
Being  appointed  by  his  authority,  it  is  our  indis- 
pensable duty  to  observe  them;  and,  as  he  is  per- 
fectly acquainted  with  human  nature,  and  can^  and 
will,  add  his  blessing  to  every  ordinance  of  his 
own  appointment,  it  must  likewise  be  our  interest. 
To  render  obedience  to  any  J)ositive  institu- 
tion acceptable  to  God,  it  must  flow  from  a  re- 
gard to  his  authority.  The  observance  of  one 
not  appointed  by  him,  is  mere  will-worship;  and 
the  observance  of  one  expressly  appointed  by  him, 
from  any  motive  short  of  conviction  of  duty,  and 
respect  to  his  authority,  is,  in  fact,  no  obedience. 
It  concerns,  then,  every  Christian,  who  desires  to 
render  acceptable  worship  to  his  God,  to  see  to  it 
that  he  is  duly  persuaded,  that  the  positive  ordi- 
nances which  he  keeps  were  really  instituted  by 
divine  authority;  and  that  he  observes  them 
agreeably  to  divine  directions.  But  this  persua- 
sion he  cannot  have,  nor  can  he  act  understand- 
ingly,  unless  he  be  acquainted  with  the  nature  of 
these  ordinances,  and  the  instructions  given  con- 
cerning them.  It  must,  therefore,  be  his  duty  to 
search  the  scriptures  on  this  subject.  This  is  at 
all  times  incumbent;  but  more  especially  so  when 
his  practice  is  censured  and  condemned  as  being 
unlawful  and  unscriptural.  Then  it  behoves  him 
to  appeal  to  the  great  rule  of  his  faith  and  prac- 
tice, the  Bible;  and  examine  whether  it  do  not 


Inirodiiclovi).  "  3 

contain  a  warrant  for  wliathe  presents  to  .his  God 
as  a  part  of  the  worsliip  demanded  from  him. 
Doubts  with  respect  to  duty  mar  religious  service, 
and  render  it  less  pleasing  to  the  Supreme  Being. 
Hence,  we  are  directed  to  "  draw  near  to  God 
with  a  true  heart,  and  in  full  assurance  of  faith." 
The  more  complete  our  conviction  of  acting  in 
conformity  to  divine  appointment,  the  more  ac- 
ceptable will  be  our  worship.  Every  Christian 
should,  therefore,  endeavour  to  gain  full  satisfac- 
tion with  respect  to  positive  ordinances^  and  to 
free  his  mind  from  those  doubts  which  spring 
from  diversity  of  sentiments  among  his  fellow 
Christians. 

There  are  two  extremes  to  be  avoided.  Some 
exalt  positive  institutions  too  high  in  the  scale  of 
religion.  They  insist  so  much  on  them,  and 
speak  with  so  much  vehemence,  that,  although 
they  may  not  intend  to  represent  them  as  being 
indispensable  to  salvation,  and  as  having  a  saving 
efficacy,  yet  they  produce,  on  uninformed  minds, 
wrong  impressions  with  respect  to  their  nature 
and  importance.  This  is  one  extreme.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  are  not  to  make  light  of  these 
ordinances,  as  if  it  were  a  matter  of  indifference 
whether  we  understand  and  observe  them  or  not. 
Into  this  extreme  many  run.  Tliey  look  upon 
positive  institutions  with  so  little  regard,  that  they 
will  not  lake  the  trouble  to  inquire  into  their 
nature  and  obligation,  and  examine  whether  they 


*  LETTER  I. 

/ 

comply  with  them  according  to  their  original  ap- 
pointment, and  the  instructions  relative  to  them 
delivered  in  Holy  Scripture.  An  insult  to  the 
M'isdom  and  authority  of  our  great  Lawgiver! 
Every  thing  in  religion  has  not,  we  admit,  equal 
importance.  Some  things  are,  and  others  are  not, 
essential.  There  is  a  great  difference  between 
the  foundation  and  the  decorations  of  a  building. 
Still,  however,  every  appointment  of  God  in  the 
government  of  his  church  is  of  importance.  No- 
thing can  be  indifferent  which  bears  the  stamp  of 
"  his  authority.  Does  he  speak?  we  are  bound  to 
hear;  and  assuredly,  if  we  listen  to  his  voice  with 
due  regard,  we  shall  derive  useful  instruction. 
Hath  he  recorded  his  will?  it  is  our  duty  to  read, 
that  we  may  learn  and  do  it.  The  order  of  his 
house  is  wise,  and  good:  and  if  we  would  stand 
approved  members  of  it,  we  must  conform  to  all 
his  regulations  and  institutions.  Positive  ordi- 
nances constitute  an  important  part  of  this  esta- 
blished order.  Every  Christian^  therefore,  who 
consults  his  own  comfort  and  edification,  will  look 
at  them  in  this  light,  and  endeavour  so  to  under- 
stand their  nature,  design,  and  import,  as  to  ob- 
serve them  in  a  due  and  conscientious  manner. 

The  remarks  which  I  have  made  on  positive 
ordinances  in  general,  will  apply  with  all  their 
force  to  baptism  in  particular.  Few  professing 
Christians  venture  to  deny  it  to  be  a  standing  ordi- 
nance in  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ.     This  truth 


Introductory.  o 

is  taught  with  such  clearness  in  sacred  scripture, 
that  no  room  is  left  for  douhling.  Two  questions, 
liowcvcr — one  respectins;  the  suhjects,  the  other 
the  mode  of  haptism — have  heen,  for  a  lonj;  time, 
and  with  great  warmtli,  agitated  among  Chris- 
tians. Whenever  these  questions  hecome  a  fresh 
suJycct  of  controversy,  douhts  will  arise  in  the 
minds  of  persons  who  have  not  carefully  examined 
them,  whether  they  are  acting  agreeahly  to  the 
will  of  their  Lord,  in  the  manner  in  which  they 
observe  this  Christian  rite.  These  questions  have, 
for  a  few  years  past,  been  made  the  subject  of 
much  discussion,  by  those  who  deny  the  right  of 
infants  to  baptism,  and  the  validity  of  that  mode 
in  which  this  ordinance  is  administered  in  our 
church:  and  as  many  of  you,  my  brethren,  have, 
at  different  times,  heard  our  faith  and  practice 
condemned  as  unscriptural,  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  doubts  on  these  points  may  have 
been  excited  in  some  of  your  minds.  It  requires 
a  mind  well  established  in  the  truth,  to  resist, 
without  w  avering,  the  force  of  objections  uttered 
witli  boasting  confidence,  and  urged  with  incessant 
repetition.  The  perpetual  dropping  of  water  will 
make  an  impression  on  s- lid  rock. 

By  these  reflections,  I  shall  stand  justified  in 
discussing  the  two  questions  relative  to  baptism^ 
and  in  laying  before  you,  as  briefly  as  may  consist 
with  a  just  investigation  of  them,  the  evidence  by 
which  the  right  of  our  children  to  this  sacred  ordi^ 
B  2 


S  LETTER  1. 

nance  is  supported,  and  the  mode,  used  by  our 
elmrcli  in  administering  it,Tindicated.  My  object 
in  doing  Ibis,  is,  to  endeavour  to  remove  the  doubts 
vvbich  may  exist  in  tlie  minds  of  some,  and  to  con- 
firm the  faith  of  others.  1  have  no  ^vish  to  enter 
into  controversy.  These  letters  are  published 
with  no  such  view.  They  are  published  chiefly 
for  the  instruction  of  that  people  among  whom  it 
has  pleased  Divine  Providence  to  make  it  my  duty, 
in  connexion  with  my  worthy  colleague,  to  labour 
in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  composing 
them,  I  endeavoured  to  lay  aside  all  asperity  of 
temper,  and  to  exercise  the  spirit  of  the  gospel; 
so  that  none  who  read  them  may  have  just 
reason  to  complain  of  being  treated  with  harsh- 
ness or  iineandid  animadversions.  In  a  word,  my 
desire  has  been  to  strip  them  of  every  appearance 
of  controversy,  so  far  as  could  consist  with  a 
proper  vindication  of  the  truth,  and  necessary 
defence  of  our  own  principles  and  conduct. 

Some  may  be  disposed  to  ask,  why  the  publi- 
cation has  been  made.  The  simple  truth  of  the 
matter  is  this.  Several  months  ago,  I  determined 
to  prepare  and  preach  a  course  of  sermons  on  the 
subject  discussed  in  these  letters.  I  chose  as  the 
ground  of  them,  Gen.  xvii.  7.  **And  I  will  es- 
tablish my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and 
thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an 
everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee."    Proceeding  in  the  ex- 


Introductorif.  7 

eeutioii  of  the  plan  Avhich  I  had  sketched  out,  it 
soon  appeared  tliat  it  would  be  necessary,  either 
to  handle  the  discussion  in  a  manner  so  brief 
as  would  make  it  unsatisfactory;  or  to  i>reaeh 
so  many  sermons  tliat  your  patience  would  be 
exhausted,  and  the  hours  of  too  many  sabbaths 
occupied  by  tlie  same  topics.  By  this  considera- 
tion I  was  induced  to  relinquish  the  idea  of  preach- 
ing on  the  subject,  and  to  pursue  it  more  at  large 
with  some  view  to  a  publication.  Accordingly  I 
employed  part  of  my  time  not  appropriated  to 
preparations  for  the  Sabbath  and  other  duties,  in 
w  riting  these  letters.  Having  brought  them  to 
a  close,  and  Iioping  that,  by  the  blessing  of  God, 
they  may  confirm  your  faith,  and  direct  your  prac- 
tice, I  send  them  to  you  from  the  press. 

That  view  of  the  questions  above  mentioned, 
is  here  presented,  which  I  judged  would  place 
them  in  the  clearest  and  most  convincing  light. 
The  arguments  might  have  been  increased  in 
number,  as  well  as  expanded  by  elucidations.  But 
I  have  consulted  brevity.  Sufficient  evidence, 
however,  will,  I  trust,  be  found  in  the  ensuing 
letters  to  satisfy  your  minds,  that  both  our  faith 
and  practice  are  scriptural. 

The  right  of  children  to  baptism,  we  ground 
on  that  well-known  covenant  made  with  Abraham, 
by  which  the  visible  church  of  God  was  constituted 
and  organized  in  his  family.  Since  the  establish- 
ment of  it,  many  governments,  formed  by  the  wis- 


8  LETTER  I. 

dom  of  man,  have  waxen  old  and  decayed;  king- 
doms have  sprung  up,  flourished,  and  passed  awaj, 
as  flowers  of  the  fleld;  and  the  laws  and  decrees 
by  which  they  were  managed,  have  sunk  into  utter 
oblivion.  But  this  covenant,  this  grand  constitu- 
tion of  Heaven,  unlike  to  human  compacts  and 
human  laws,  has,  by  the  ravages  of  time,  neither 
lost  its  remembrance,  nor  been  diminished  in  its 
binding  authority.  In  Holy  Scripture,  it  stands 
recorded  for  the  instruction  and  comfort  of  all 
generations.  Age  has  contributed  to  make  it  the 
more  venerable:  and  the  right  secured  by  it  to 
children  has,  by  long  continued  enjoyment,  be- 
come the  more  stable. 

This  covenant,  constituting  the  church  of  God 
in  the  patriarch's  family,  was  made  with  him 
as  the  head  and  representative  of  Gentile-be- 
lievers, as  well  as  of  his  natural  descendants,  in 
the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob.  It  gave  to  children 
the  right  of  being  members  of  this  holy  society: 
and,  remaining  to  this  day  unaltered  in  its  grants 
and  provisions,  it  still  secures  to  them  the  same 
invaluable  privilege.  Hence,  it  follows,  with 
abundant  evidence,  that  they  have  a  divine  right 
to  the  covenant-seal,  the  token  of  their  relation  to 
God,  the  sign  of  fellowship  in  his  church,  and 
the  badge  of  citizenship  in  the  great  common- 
wealth of  Israel.  To  favour  a  doctrine  which 
unjustly  deprives  children  of  their  long  enjoyed 
right,  and  expels  them  from  that  church  of  which 


lutrodiictorij,  9 

the  Great  Heail  made  tliem  members;  some  have 
spoken  contemptuously  of  this  covenant,  as  pro- 
misiui^  nothing  more  than  temporal  or  external 
blessings.  But  all  >vho  understand  its  true  nature 
and  real  import,  and  are  acquainted  with  the  unity 
of  God's  government  over  his  church,  will  regard 
it  as  the  great  charter  of  the  privileges,  blessings, 
and  hopes,  which  he  has  granted  to  believers,  and 
to  their  seed. 

The  nature  of  this  gracious  covenant  has,  by 
the  controversy  carried  on  with  respect  to  infant 
baptism,  been  involved  in  much  obscurity;  and 
every  thing  in  it  favourable  to  the  right  of  children, 
made  a  subject  of  dispute.  Hence,  it  is  necessary 
to  prove,  by  solid  arguments,  many  points  which 
might  otherwise  be  taken  for  granted;  and  to  ex- 
tend further  than  might  be  expected,  the  discus- 
sion of  the  nature  and  properties  of  this  cove- 
nant, in  order  to  establish  firmly  the  several  prin- 
ciples on  which  the  right  of  our  children  to  baptism 
rests.  I  must,  therefore,  solicit  your  patient  at- 
tention. By  assuming  several  particulars  which  I 
have  endeavoured  to  prove,  this  discussion  might 
have  been  much  shortened:  but  then  it  would 
have  been  rendered  less  satisfactory  and  convin- 
cing, to  those  who  know  how  to  distinguish  be- 
tween bold  assertions  and  solid  arguments. 

The  view  of  the  Abrahamie  covenant,  present- 
ed in  these  letters,  will,  it  is  hoped,  tend  to  throw 
light  on  the  dealings  of  God  with  his  church,  and 


10        ^  LETTER  I. 

on  several  important,  though  difficult,  passages  of 
Holj  Scripture^  and  serve  to  increase  your  esti- 
mation of  the  blessed  privilege  of  dedicating  your 
children  to  God  in  baptism,  as  well  as  to  confirm 
your  faith  in  that  article  of  our  creed,  that  they 
are  by  right  members  of  his  visible  church,  and, 
therefore,  ought  to  be  recognised  as  such,  by  im- 
pressing on  them  the  seal  of  his  gracious  covenant. 

The  several  leading  points  which  it  seemed 
necessary  to  prove,  and  which  I  have  endeavoured 
to  establish,  are  the  following. 

I.  The  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  con- 
tains both  spiritual  and  external  blessings. 

II.  It  is  a  perpetual  covenant. 

III.  Gentile-believers  and  their  offspring  have 
an  interest  in  it. 

"*IV.  The  covenant  imposes  very  serious  and 
highly  important  duties. 

V.  The  grand  result  of  these  truths,  is,  that  the 
children  of  God's  professing  people  have  a  divine 
right  to  baptism. 


LETTER  II. 

The  Covenant  contains  hoth  Spiritual  and  External 
Blessings. 

Christian  Brethren, 

Two  errors  are  embraced  with  respect  to  the 
Abrahamic  covenant.  Some  insist  that  it  contains 
no  spiritual  blessings,  but  promised  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed  only  temporal  favours.  Others, 
while  they  admit  that  it  included  temporal  pri- 
vileges, prior  to  our  Saviour's  incarnation,  as- 
sert that,  since  that  event  the  reason  of  them 
having  ceased,  it  now  contains  only  spiritual  bless- 
ings. In  opposition  to  these  opinions,  it  ^vill  be 
shown  that  the  covenant  comprehends  both  tem- 
poral and  spiritual  blessings. 

I.  IT  COMPREHENDS  SPIRITUAL  BLESSINGS, 

The  first  argument  in  support  of  this  position, 
Ave  derive  from  the  grand  covenant-promise. 
What  is  this  promise?  That  God  will  be  a  God  to 
Abraham  and  to  his  seed.  How  comprehensive! 
How  glorious!  Can  one  more  comprehensive  and 
glorious  be  found  in   any  part  of  the  inspired 


12  iETTEK   II. 

volume?  How  similar  to  that  recorded  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews!  *<  For  this  is  the  cove- 
nant that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel, 
after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord:  I  will  put  my 
laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their 
hearts;  and  1 7vill  he  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall 
he  to  me  a  people,^'^  Do  not  the  very  terms  in 
which  this  grand  promise  to  Abraham  is  express- 
ed, constrain  us,  by  their  natural  force,  to  con- 
clude, that  it  must  have  respect  to  blessings  far 
more  important  than  temporal  favours?  If  God 
had  designed  by  his  covenant  to  secure  to  hira 
and  to  his  seed  nothing  more  than  the  possession 
of  Canaan,  and  external  privileges  not  enjoyed  by 
other  nations,  wouUl  he  have  expressed  his  engage- 
ments in  terms  of  the  sublimest  import?  "  To  be  a 
God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee!*'  This 
includes  every  thing.  A  promise  more  compre- 
hensive cannot  be  formed  into  words.  On  the  sup- 
position that  God  intended  to  make  the  engage- 
ment, which  we  contend  he  did,  terms  more  suita- 
ble, more  expressive,  more  ample,  could  not  have 
been  selected. 

In  opposition  to  this  reasoning,  it  may  be  said, 
the  promise  is  not  to  be  understood  in  its  full  and 
natural  import.  No  sufficient  reason,  however,  can 
be  assigned  for  this  limitation.  Neither  the  con- 
text, nor  the  state  of  the  patriarch,  will  furnish 

*  Ch.  vlii.  10. 


Spiritual  Blessings.  13 

one.  On  the  contrary,  both  unite  in  supporting  our 
construction.  Consider  the  manner  in  ^vhicli  this 
wonderful  transaction  is  introduced.  To  animate 
the  faith,  and  raise  the  expectations  of  Abraham, 
it  is  preceded  by  an  assurance  very  similar  to  that 
which  preceded  the  commission  and  promise  given 
by  our  blessed  Lord  to  his  apostles,  when  he  ap- 
pointed them  ambassadors  of  peace,  and  heralds  of 
life  and  salvation  to  a  guilty  and  rebellious  world. 
"  And  when  Mram  xvas  ninety  years  old  and  nine, 
the  LORD  appeared  to  Mram,  and  said  unto  him, 
I  AM  THE  ALMIGHTY  GOD."^  Now,  if  God  had  in- 
tended, by  this  covenant,  merely  to  engage  to  take 
Abraham  and  his  seed  into  an  external  relation, 
and  to  bestow  on  them  only  temporal  blessings, 
would  lie  have  introduced  the  transaction  by  pro- 
claiming his  most  glorious  title? 

Consider  also  the  patriarch's  religious  state, 
when  the  covenant  was  established.  He  was  a 
true  believer,  reconciled  to  God  by  the  blood  of 
atonement.  There  was  nothing,  then,  in  his  con* 
dition  to  lead  him  to  interpret  the  promise,  as  it 
respected  himself,  differently  from  the  full  and 
natural  import  of  the  terms  in  which  it  was  con- 
veyed. 

If  this  promise  did  not,  we  ask.  Where  is  the 
promise  given  to  Abrahani  which  did,  include 
spiritual  blessings?    Search   the   sacred  volume, 

*  Mat.  xxviii.  IS — '20.  Gen.  xvii.  1. 
C 


14f  LETTER   II. 

and  you  will  not  find  one  expressed  in  terms  more 
obvious  in  meaning,  or  more  comprehensive  in 
extent.  While  those  gracious  engagements  of 
the  Most  High  which  preceded,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  one,  in  Gen,  xv.  18.  relating  only  to  the 
land  of  Canaan,  are  delivered  in  the  simple  form 
of  a  promise;  this  is  delivered,  with  peculiar  so- 
lemnity, in  the  form  of  a  covenant,  confirmed  by  a 
visible  and  standing  token.  Let  it  be  considered 
too,  that,  in  this  ever  memorable  transaction, 
Jehovah  assumed,  for  the j^?'6t  time,  the  delightful 
covenant-title  of  being  a  God  to  his  people.  Never 
before  did  he  publish  to  his  church  that  all-cheer- 
ing promise:  «*  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee."  If,  on  such  an  occasion,  we 
must  fritter  away  this  sublime  promise  into  a  mere 
engagement  to  confer  on  Abraham  and  his  de- 
scendants a  few  distinguishing  favours  which 
perish  in  the  using;  if  we  must  explain  away  the 
condescension  and  grace  of  Jehovah,  so  as  to  leave 
in  this  glorious  covenant-title  nothing  more  than 
the  character  of  a  political  sovereign  of  the  patri- 
areh* s  posterity:  I  ask.  when  shall  we  receive  this 
promise  as  conveying  to  the  church  those  trea- 
sures of  grace  and  glory  which  it  assuredly  com- 
prehends? and  when  shall  we  consider  this  title 
as  constituting  that  relation  to  his  people,  which 
emboldens  them  to  call  him,  Ahha,  Father;  and 
say  to  others,  '<  Tkis  God  is  our  God  for  ere  er  and 
ever;  he  xv'dl  he  our  guide  even  unto  deat/i?" 


Spiritual  Bkssings.  1J5 

Placed  in  cipcumstances  so  peculiar,  how  could 
Abraham  do  other^vise  than  understand  the  pro- 
mise according  to  the  natural  import  of  the 
terms  in  which  it  was  delivered?  Did  he  receive 
other  promises  as  comprehending  spiritual  bless- 
ings? and  could  he  contract  this  most  glorious 
promise  so  as  to  exclude  them,  and  view  the 
covenant  as  relating  merelv  to  temporal  matters? 
It  cannot  be.  The  believing  patriarch  doubtless 
beheld  in  it  a  treasure,  for  himself  and  for  his 
posterity,  infinitely  richer  than  a  land  flowing 
with  milk  and  honey,  and  all  its  attendant  bless- 
ings of  a  worldly  nature. 

Had  not  this  covenant  respected  spiritual  bene- 
fits, Jehovah  would  not  have  assumed  in  it  the 
title  of  being  the  God  of  Abraham  and  his  seed; 
for  the  import  of  it  is  too  glorious  to  belong  to  any 
covenant  regarding  things  merely  temporal.  An 
apostle  has  clearly  determined  this  point,  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews;  where,  speaking  of  the 
patriarchs,  he  affirms,  that  because  God  hath 
prq)aredfor  them  a  heavenly  city  he  is  not  ashamed 
to  he  called  their  God:^  plainly  implying  that,  if 
God  had  not  by  the  covenant  dignified  with  this 
style,  provided  for  them  more  than  temporal  fa- 
vours, he  would  not  have  used  it. 

To  anticipate  an  objection,  it  may  be  proper 
to  observe,  that  God  styled  himself  the  God  of  the 
Hebrews  in  reference  rather  to  this  than  to  the 

*  Heb.  xi.  16. 


16       ,  LETTEB   II. 

Sinai-covenant.  Long  before  the  formation  of 
the  latter,  he  had,  by  the  former,  engaged  to  be 
their  God.  Hence,  when  he  came  to  effect  their 
emancipation  from  Egyptian  bondage,  he  called 
them  his  people^  and  himself  their  God:  **  And  the 
Lord  said,  1  have  surely  seen  the  affliction  of  my 
people  which  are  in  Egypt.  And  thou  shalt  come, 
thou  and  the  elders  of  Israel,  unto  the  king  of 
Egypt,  and  ye  shall  say  unto  him,  The  lord  God 
of  the  Hthrcws  hath  met  with  us:  and  now  let  us 
go,  we  beseech  thee,  three  days'  journey  into  the 
wilderness,  that  we  may  sacrifice  to  the  lord  our 
God.''* 

In  fact,  the  covenant  of  Sinai  was  subsequent 
to  that  of  the  patnareh:f  and  as  it  comprehended 
only  temporal  blessings,  the  text  referred  to  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  authorizes  us  to  conclude, 
that  it  would  not  have  comported  with  the  dignity 
of  Jehovah  to  have  formed  a  national  covenant 
with  Israel,  and  to  have  styled  himself  their  God; 
but  on  the  ground  of  its  connexion  with,  and  sub- 
serviency to,  the  covenant  made  with  their  fathers, 
comprehending  spiritual  blessings. ij: 

There  are  various  passages  of  sacred  scripture, 
which  prove  clearly,  that  the  covenant  of  Abra- 
ham included  spiritual  blessings.  The  first  to  be 
cited,  in  addition  to  the  one  already  adduced,  is 
that  remarkable  text,  containing  our  Lord's  reply 

*  Exod.  iii.  7. 18.        f  Deut.  xxix.  13,  25.       ■^  Compare  Levit.  xxvi, 
12,  with  2  Cor.  vi.  16. 


Spiritual  Blessings,  17 

to  a  question  proposed  by  the  Sadducees^  in  which 
he  infers  fhe  resurrection  of  the  body  from  the 
grand  tiile  wliieh  God  assumed  in  this  covenant. 
<*  ^s  touching  the  dead  that  they  rise;  have  you  not 
read  in  the  hook  of  Moses,  how  in  the  bush  God 
spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of  Mraham, 
and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacobs  He  is 
not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  the  God  of  the  living; 
ye  therefore  do  greatly  err,'^^  When  Jehovah 
spake  to  Moses  out  of  the  bush,  the  patriarchs 
were  sleeping  in  their  graves;  and,  therefore,  as 
he  then  styled  himself  their  God,  it  was  certain,  in 
our  Saviour's  judgment,  that  their  souls  were 
living:  and,  inasmuch  as  the  covenant-relation 
subsisted  between  God  and  their  whole  nature,  it 
follows,  from  the  same  title,  that  their  bodies  must 
be  raised  from  the  dead,  to  share  with  their  im- 
mortal spirits  in  divine  favours.  Now,  it  is  evi- 
dent, from  tlie  chapter  recording  the  conversation 
between  the  Almighty  and  his  servant  Moses,  that 
reference  is  liad  to  Abraham's  covenant,  in  which 
God,  for  the  first  time,  assumed  this  glorious 
name:  and,  therefore,  if  it  secured  to  the  patriarchs 
a  happy  immortality,  and  a  future  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  it  follows  incontrovertibly,  that 
this  covenant  included  spiritual,  as  well  as  tempo- 
ral blessings. 

The  next  passage  which  I  submit  to  your  con- 

*  Mark  xii,  26,  27. 

c  2 


18  LETTER   II. 

sideratioii,  is  recorded  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans.  Speaking  of  Abraham,  the 
apostle  «ays,  "  He  received  the  sign  of  circumcision, 
a  seal  of  f/ie  righteousness  of  the  faith  which 
he  had  being  yet  uncircumcised;  that  he  might  he  the 
father  of  axl  them  that  believe,  though  they 
be  not  circumcised;  (haf  righteousness  might  be 
imputed  unto  them  also;  and  the  father  of  the 
circumcision  to  them  who  are  not  of  the  circum- 
cision only,  hut  ivho  also  wall^  in  the  steps  of  that 
faith  of  our  father  Mraham,  which  he  had,  being 
yet  uncircumcised,^^ 

From  this  passage  it  is  proposed  to  prove,  that 
Abraham  was  constituted  father  of  all  believers, 
by  the  covenant  under  examination;  and  from  this 
fact  to  infer,  that  the  covenant  must  necessarily 
comprise  spiritual  blessings.  Two  things  are 
certain:  1,  Abraham  was  constituted  father  of  the 
faithful,  whether  Jewish  or  Christian:  for  he  re- 
ceived circumcision,  as  the  text  states,  that  he 
might  sustain  a  paternal  relation  to  them.  2.  He 
is  a  father  to  them  in  a  sense  in  which  no  other 
man  is  so  denominated.  This  is  evident  from  the 
uniform  tenor  of  sacred  scripture.  Neither  Isaac, 
nor  Jacob,  his  immediate  descendants,  nor  any 
other  person,  how  distinguished  soever  for  piety,  is 
ever  styled,  by  an  inspired  writer,  the  father  of 
believers.  This  is  an  honour  belonging  exclusively 
to  Abraham. 

We  ask,  therefore,  what  constituted  the  patri- 


spiritual  Blessings,  19 

arch  the  father  of  the  faithful?  How  was  his  pater- 
nal relation  to  believers  established?  W  hat  is  the 
proper  ground  on  which  it  is  founded?  It  is  usual 
to  style  a  person  eminent  for  any  particular  quality, 
father  of  those  who  imitate  him  in  this  quality: 
and,  hence,  it  has  been  commonly  observed,  that  as* 
Abraham  was  eminent  for  his  faith,  so  he  became, 
on  this  ground,  the  father  of  all  believers,  inas- 
much as  he  is  a  model  of  faith  to  all  generations. 
But  this  cannot  be  the  true  reason  of  the  appella- 
tion: because,  if  it  be  taken  in  this  sense;  if  Abra- 
ham's faith  made  him  the  father  of  the  faithful; 
then  the  honour  is  not  confined  exclusively  to  him. 
Enoch  and  Noah,  Moses  and  David,  and  a  long 
list  of  others,  were  eminent  for  the  strength  of 
their  faith,  and  are  exhibited,  in  holy  scripture,  as 
models  of  this  grace;  and  may,  therefore,  be  de- 
nominated, for  the  same  reason,  fathers  of  all 
believers. 

How,  then,  the  question  recurs,  did  the  patri- 
arch become,  iu  an  exclusive  sense,  the  father  of 
believers?  We  answer.  By  the  appointment  of  God: 
who  gave  him  circumcision  as  a  token  of  that  signal 
honour  conferred  on  him;  just  as  a  seal  royal  is 
given  as  a  token  of  an  honorary  title  conferred  by 
a  prince  on  one  of  his  subjects.  <*  He  received," 
says  Paul,  "the  sign  of  circumcision,  Q.seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  being  yet 
uncircumcised,"  for  this  express  purpose,  ''  that 
he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe:^' 


W  LETTER   II. 

plainly  importing,  that  he  received  his  title  and 
circumcision  from  God  as  a  matter  of  free  dona- 
tion; and  the  latter  to  certify  him,  that  he  should 
sustain  a  paternal  relation  to  the  whole  church. 
The  patriarch's  faith  may  have  been  the  reason 
•why  it  pleased  Jehovah  to  put  on  him  so  great  an 
honour.  It  ought,  however,  to  be  observed,  that  the 
covenant  which  constituted  him  father  of  all  be- 
lievers, was  made  with  him  many  years  before  that 
illustrious  act  of  faith,  which  he  exhibited  in  the  in- 
tended sacrifice  of  his  son  Isaac;  and  even  before 
that  act  of  faith,  which  the  apostle  celebrates  in  the 
fourth  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans:*  and, 
indeed,  he  was  virtually  made,  though  notformally 
constituted  such,  previously  to  the  display  of  any 
very  remarkable  evidence  of  this  grace.  (See  Gen. 
xii.  o.)  But,  admitting  that  he  received  this  hono- 
rary title  as  a  reward  of  his  faith,  still  his  faith  was 
not  the  proper  ground  on  which  it  rested;  because, 
if  God  had  not  constituted  him  the  father  of  believ- 
ers, his  faith,  how  great  soever,  could  not  have  made 
him  such.  To  reward  a  subject  for  some  signal  ex- 
ploit, his  prince  confers  upon  him  a  title  of  nobi- 
lity. Now,  it  is  evident  that,  although  this  exploit 
operates,  in  the  royal  mind,  as  an  inducement  to 
bestow  the  reward,  yet  it  is  the  prince's  act,  and 
not  the  subject's  exploit,  which  makes  him  a  no- 
bleman; and,  to  prove  his  right  to  rank  among  the 

•  Comp.  Rom.  iv.  19,  with   Gen.  xviii.  11 — 15,  and    both    with 
Gen.  xvii.  1. 


spiritual  Blessings.  21 

nobility  of  his  country,  he  must  produce  the  royal 
grant.  Thus  stands  the  matter  with  respect  to 
Abraham.  The  act,  the  donation  of  Jehovah, 
made  him  the  father  of  believers;  although  he 
may  have  received  the  ennobling  title  as  a  gracious 
reward  of  his  faith. 

Now,  if  it  can  be  proved,  that  Abraham  was 
constituted  father  of  the  faithful,  by  the  covenant 
ynder  examination,  it  will  follow  conclusively  that 
this  covenant  must  comprehend  spiritual  bless- 
ings. Of  this  fiict,  there  is  evidence  sufficient  to 
place  it  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt;  for  mention 
is  made  of  this  \erj  title  in  the  record  of  the 
covenant;  not,  indeed,  in  the  same,  yet  in  terms 
equivalent  in  meaning:  "  JVeither  shall  thy  nnme 
any  more  he  called  Abram;  hut  thy  name  shall  he 
called  Abraham:  for  a  father  of  many  nations 
have  I  made  thee.^'^  This  promise,  we  admit,  may 
have  some  reference  to  the  nations  that  sprung 
from  the  patriarch's  loins.  But  it  is  to  be  observed, 
Abraham  was  not  the  natural  father  of  many  na- 
iions:  and,  therefore,  the  promise  must  be  consider- 
ed as  looking  beyond  his  natural  descendants,  and 
as  having  a  special  reference  to  his  numerous,  spi- 
ritual seed,  true  believers  of  every  age  and  nation 
under  heaven.  This  is  no  conjectur^;  it  is  truth, 
sanctioned  by  apostolic  authority.    For  Paul  thus 

"  Gen.  xvii.  5. 


28  LETTER   II. 

interprets  the  language  of  the  covenant.  In  illus- 
trating and  confirming  the  very  argument  to  >vhicli 
the  text  (Rom.  iv.  11,  12.)  belongs,  he  subjoins, 
as  a  proof  of  his  assertion  that  Abraham  "  is  the 
father  of  us  all,"  these  very  words  of  the  covenant; 
*'  As  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father 
OF  MANY  NATIONS."^*  Tlijs  scttlcs  the  matter. 
Apostolic  authority  has  determined  the  honorary 
title  given  in  the  covenant  to  Abraham,  to  have 
special  reference  to  his  spiritual  seed,  true  believ- 
ers of  all  nations;  and  ^^ father  of  all  them  that  be- 
lieve,^' and  *^ father  of  many  nations,^'  to  be  phra- 
ses so  far  equivalent,  that  the  latter  includes  the 
former.  I 

The  fact  is  now  established.  Abraham  was 
constituted  father  of  the  faithful,  by  the  covenant 
under  examination.  From  this  fact,  it  follows, 
that  the  covenant  must  contain  spiritual  blessings: 
for  with  what  propriety  could  the  patriarch  be 
constituted  father  of  Gentile-helievers  in  a  cove- 
nant which  did  not  comprehend  spiritual  blessings? 

This  truth  receives  additional  evidence,  when 
we  reflect  for  what  purpose  Abraham  was  consti- 
tuted father  of  believers.  It  was  not  merely  to 
exhibit  him  as  a  model  of  faith,  but  that  he  might 

*  Rom.  xiv. T . 

t  Includes,-  because  the  one,  as  it  has  respect  to  Abraham's  car- 
nal seed  as  well  as  to  believers,  is  more  comprehensive  than  the  other. 


Spiritual  Blessings.  23 

transmit  to  them  the  benefits  of  covenant-grace; 
just  as  a  natural  father  transmits  an  inheritance 
to  his  chiklren.  Human  law  secures  to  children 
the  property  of  their  parents:  so  the  divine  consti- 
tution or  covenant  secures  to  all  believers  the 
blessings  of  their  father  Abraham.  This  inter- 
pretation evidently  coincides  with  the  language  of 
an  inspired  writer:  <«  Know  ye,  therefore,  that 
they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the  children 
of  Abraham.  And  the  scriptures,  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith, 
preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying, 
In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.  So  then,  they 
which  be  of  faith,  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abra- 
ham."* *•  That  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might 
come  on  tJie  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ;  that 
we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through 
faith." 

By  these  texts,  the  following  points  are  plainly 
establislied:  Bdiarers  receive  blessings  from  Godf 
considered  as  the  children  vf  Mraham.  They 
are  expressly  called  his  children:  and  it  is  pro- 
mised that  all  nations  shall  be  blessed  in  him;  that 
is,  by  being  united  to  his  family,  and  brought  un- 
der the  operation  of  his  covenant. — Believers  enjoy 
the  same  hlessings  ivhich  their  covenant-father  en- 
joyed: tliey  '<  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham." 

»  Gal.  iii.  7--9.  14. 


24.  LETTER   II. 

Believers  inherit  from  him,  as  their  covenant-fa' 
ther,  SPIRITUAL  blessings;  such  as  justification 
by  faith,  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  which  are  ex- 
pressly mentioned  in  these  quotations.  Can  a  doubt, 
then,  remain,  that  Abraham  was,  by  this  covenant, 
appointed  their  father,  for  the  great  purpose  of 
transmitting  the  blessings  of  grace  and  glory  to 
all  who  by  faith  become  members  of  his  family? 

If  additional  evidence  be  required  to  support 
this  point,  and  to  show  that  such  is  the  real,  scrip- 
tural import  of  the  patriarch's  honorary  title;  I 
refer  you  again  to  the  particular  text  under  inves- 
tigation. There,  you  will  find  the  inspired  writer 
specifies  the  purpose  for  which  Abraham  was  con- 
stituted ^*  father  of  all  them  that  helieve,^^  Wliat 
was  it?  It  follows:  That  righteousness  might 
BE  IMPUTED  UNTO  THEM  ALSO:"  In  Other  words, 
that  he,  as  the  head  of  his  family,  might  transmit 
to  all  its  members,  the  great  blessing  of  justifica- 
tion by  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,  re- 
ceived by  faith;  and  consequently  all  other  spiri- 
tual blessings,  because  they  are  inseparably  con- 
nected with  this  fundamental  one.  Every  justified 
believer  is  undoubtedly  sanctified,  and  adopted, 
and  a  partaker  of  all  saving  benefits. 

This  matter  may  be  illustrated  by  recurring  to 
a  comparison  already  used.  A  title  of  nobility  is 
conferred  on  a  subject.  By  virtue  of  the  royal 
grant,  he  becomes  the  head  of  a  noble  family;  and 


Spiritual  Blessings,  25 

as  such  transmits,  according  to  the  tenor  of  his 
grant,  a  title  and  all  the  privileges  connected  with 
it,  to  his  heirs  in  their  several  generations.  In 
like  manner,  Abraham  was  ennobled  by  the  King 
of  kings:  and,  by  virtue  of  his  royalgrant,  or  co- 
venant, constituting  him  father  of  all  believers,  he 
transmits  to  them,  his  appointed  heirs,  the  bless- 
ings comprehended  in  the  covenant. 

Let  us  collect  the  result  of  the  explanation 
given  of  this  important  passage.     It  appears, 

1.  That  Abraham  was  constituted  father  of  be- 
lievers by  the  covenant  under  examination. 

2.  That  he,  as  their  covenant-father,  transmits 
to  them  the  benefits  of  this  covenant;  and 

3.  That  believers,  as  his  heirs  appointed  by 
this  covenant,  receive  spiritual  blessings;  particu- 
larly justification  by  faith,  and  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit. 

From  these  premises,  we  draw  it  as  an  incon- 
testable conclusion,  That  this  covenant  must  con- 
tain SPIRITUAL  BENEFITS. 

The  light  which  has  now  been  thrown  on  this  text, 
will  enable  us  to  see  the  precise  manner  in  which 
circumcision  operated  as  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  in  respect  to  Abraham.  Many  admit 
the  truth,  who  do  not  seem  to  understand  it.  Cir- 
cumcision was  given  to  the  patriarch,  as  an  ap- 
pointed token  or  seal  of  the  covenant;  and  as  such 
it  was  received  by  him.   It  was,  therefore,  to  him 

D 


26  LETTER   II. 

a  confirmation  of  all  its  engagements^  and,  as 
the  covenant  contained  spiritnal  blessings,  and 
among  them  stood  preeminently  justification  by 
faith,  circumcision  was  of  course  a  seal  of  this 
fundamental  benefit.  It  certified  Abraham  that^ 
according  to  corenant-promise,  he  should  be  jus- 
tified by  that  righteousness  which  he  had  already 
received  by  faith. 

I  finish  this  branch  of  the  subject,  by  showing 
that  this  covenant,  as  already  intimated,  contains 
not  only  some,  but  all  spiritual  blessings;  and  that, 
from  its  nature,  it  must  necessarily  have  respect 
to  Christ,  our  Redeemer.  It  has  been  distinctly 
proved,  that  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit,  or,  in  other  words,  justification 
and  sanctification,  together  with  a  glorious  resur- 
rection from  tlie  dead,  belong  to  it;  blessings  in- 
separably connected  with  all  others  of  a  spiritual 
nature.  Besides,  the  grand  promise  of  this  cove- 
nant is  expressed  in  terms  the  most  comprehen- 
sive; which  taken,  as  we  have  seen  they  ought 
to  be,  according  to  their  natural  import,  must 
comprehend  all  spiritual  blessings.  "  I  will  be 
their  God:"  this  secures,  to  every  believing  son 
■and  daughter  of  Abraham,  pardon,  reconciliation, 
peace,  renovation,  growth  and  perseverance  in 
grace,  protection  against  every  enemy,  victory 
over  death,  admission  into  heaven,  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  and  life  eternal.     We  may,  there- 


Spiritual  Slessings.  27 

fore,  consider  every  subsequent  promise  given  by 
Jehovab  to  his  people,  and  recorded  in  sacred 
scripture,  as  intended  to  develop  this  grand  cove- 
nant promise,  virtually  including  all  other  pro- 
mises; and  to  teach  them  more  distinctly  >vhat 
they  may,  and  ought  to,  expect  from  his  grace  and 
munificence,  who  has  condescended  to  engage  to 
be  a  God  unto  them. 

This  covenant  must  likewise  have  respect  to 
Christ;  because,  only  through  his  mediation,  can 
Jehovah  become  a  God  to  any  of  our  apostate  race. 
The  grand  promise  of  it  was  founded  on  the  pre- 
vious promise  of  a  Saviour;  and  the  fulfilment  of 
the  one  depended  on  the  fulfilment  of  the  other. 
Had  not  a  Saviour  been  promised,  the  Supreme 
Being  could  not  have  engaged,  consistently  with 
his  glory,  to  be  a  God  to  sinful  mortals:  and  had 
not  Christ  made  the  necessary  expiation  for  sin, 
covenant-blessings  would  not  have  been  bestowed 
on  them.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  an  inspired  apos» 
tie:  <*  Now  I  say,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  minister 
of  the  circumcision  for  the  truth  of  God,  to  con- 
firm the  promises  made  unto  the  fathers.  And  for 
this  cause,  he  is  mediator  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  by  means  of  death,  for  the  redemption  of  the 
transgressions  that  were  under  the  first  testa- 
ment, they  which  are  called  might  receive  the 
promise  of  eternal  inheritance:"=^    And,  in  his 

*  Rom.  XV.  8.  Heb.  k.  15. 


28  LETTER    II. 

epistle  to  the  Galatians,  the  same  apostle,  speak* 
ing  of  this  very  covenant,  tells  us  expressly,  that 
it  "  was  confirmed  of  God  in  (with  respect  to) 
ChrisV^  By  believing  in  the  Saviour,  his  pro- 
mised seed,  Abraham  was  justified,  and  obtained 
the  other  blessings  of  the  covenant:  and  the  fulfil- 
ment of  its  gracious  engagements,  is  secured  to  all 
his  spiritual  seed  by  faith  in  the  same  Redeemer. 
There  are  several  other  passages,  bearing  on 
the  point  in  hand,  which  prove  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  to  include  spiritual  blessings^  but  the 
limits  assigned  to  this  discussion,  will  not  allow 
the  introduction  of  them.  Nor  is  it  necessary:  the 
truth  we  contend  for  may  be  confidently  rested  on 
the  texts  submitted  to  your  consideration. 

II.  The  covenant  of  Abraham  contains 

TEMPORAL  OR  EXTERNAL  BLESSINGS.     Tlus  is  the 

second  truth,  which  we  oppose  to  the  second  error.- 
No  writer,  as  far  as  I  know,  denies  that  this 
covenant  did,  at  its  original  formation,  include 
benefits  of  such  a  nature.  All  admit  the  promises 
relative  to  Canaan,  and  the  birth  of  Messiah,  to 
have  been  external  blessings.  Still,  however, 
some  contend,  that,  since  our  Saviour's  incarna- 
tion, engagements  of  this  kind  being  fulfilled,  the 
covenant  has  no  respect  to  tempoi*al,  and  contem- 
plates only  spiritual,  benefits.  This  opinion  we 
believe  to  be  unscriptural.     The  promise  relative 

*  Gal.  iii.  1 7. 


Sinriliial  Blessings,  29 

lo  the  birth  of  our  Redeemer  has,  indeed,  been 
aeeoiiiplished;  and  consequently,  the  Je>vish  peo- 
ple are  no  longer  a  consecrated  vehicle  for  intro- 
ducing him  into  the  world.    But,  has  the  donation 
of  Canaan  been  revoked?   Was  the  right  to  this 
land,  invested,  by  the  promise  of  Jehovah,  in  the 
descendants  of  Abraham,  to  expire  at  a  particular 
period?  We  contend  that  it  was  not.   The  promise 
is  part  of  an  everlasting  covenant.   Perhaps  it  will 
be  said,  that,  by  dispossessing  them  of  their  inhe- 
ritance, God  has,  by  an  act  of  his  providence, 
plainly  intimated  the  duration  of  his  grant.    True 
it  is,  they  have  been  driven  from  that  goodly  land; 
but  are  we  not  taught  to  regard  this  as  a  judgment 
for  their  sins,  which  will  be  removed  when  they 
shall  return  to  the  Lord?  They  were  once  before 
dispossessed  of  their  country,  and  carried  away 
captives  to  Babylon;  and  yet,  after  having  worn 
out  a  servitude  of  seventy  years,  in  a  strange  land, 
they  were  restored  to  their  inheritance:  and  why 
may  we  not  conclude  that  they  will,  on  their  re- 
pentance,  be  again  collected  and  brought  back  to 
the  land  of  their  fathers?  Their  present  existence 
as  a  separate  people  evidently  favours  this  expec- 
tation.    Indeed,  the  prophets  of  God  have  clearly 
foretold,  not  only  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  to 
the  Christian  faith,  but  also  their  restoration,  as 
a  people,  to  their  ancient  country.     This  opinion 
is  embraced  by  many  able  expositors  of  sacred 
D  2 


oO  iETTER   II. 

prophecy:  and,  were  we  now  to  enter  on  the  discus- 
sion, numerous,  plain,  and  decisive  predictions 
might  he  adduced  in  support  of  it. 

But  dismissing,  for  the  present,  this  suhject 
with  these  few  observations,  we  intend  to  show, 
that  all  external  blessings  bestowed  on  the  patri- 
arch's descendants,  came  as  the  fruits  of  this  co- 
venant. Did  the  Almighty  display  his  marvellous 
works  in  Egypt,  and,  by  his  mighty  arm,  effect 
their  emancipation  from  cruel  bondage?  Did  he 
lead  them  through  the  Red  Sea,  feed  them  with 
manna  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  and  at  last 
conduct  them  to  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey?  These  miraculous  interpositions  of  his 
providence,  were  granted  in  fulfilment  of  his  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  and  his  seed.  Did  Jehovah 
condescend  to  enter  into  covenant  with  them  as  a 
nation?  Moses  derives  the  reason  of  the  memo- 
rable transaction  at  Sinai,  from  this  covenant: 
**  That  he  may  establish  thee  to-day  for  a  people 
unto  himself  9  and  that  he  may  he  unto  thee  a  God, 
as  he  hath  said  unto  thee,  and  as  he  hath  sworn 
unto  thy  fathers,  to  Mraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to 
Jacoh,^'^  Did  the  Most  High  become  their  king? 
It  was  to  carry  into  effect  his  covenant.  Having 
by  their  emancipation  made  tliem  a  separate  and 
independent  people,  a  civil  government  became 
necessary:  and,  for  the  more  effectual  accomplish- 

*  Deut.  xxix.  13,  25. 


Spiritual  Blessings.  31 

ment  of  covenant- engagements,  God  saw  it  best, 
not  to  leave  them  to  the  sagacity  of  human  pru- 
dence, but  to  give  them  a  system  of  political  laws, 
emanating  from  his  own  wisdom.  Did  Jehovah 
make  them  the  depositary  of  his  heavenly  oracles, 
and  send  them  prophet  after  prophet  for  their  in- 
struction? It  was  doubtless  to  establish  his  cove- 
nant with  them,  and  that  he  might  become,  in  the 
sublimest  sense  of  the  word,  a  God  to  his  chosen. 
The  divine  oracles  were  the  great  external  benefit 
included  in  this  covenant.  When  Paul  asks  the 
question,  *'  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision?" 
that  is,  what  profit  in  being  a  Jew,  a  descendant 
of  Abraham,  wearing  in  the  flesh  the  token  of 
God's  covenant?  what  is  his  reply?  Does  he  say, 
the  Jews  possess  the  promised  land;  they  are  go- 
verned by  civil  laws  enacted  by  Heaven?  These 
were  indeed  temporal  favours  of  great  value, 
which  God  had  bestowed  on  them.  But  they  en-, 
joyed  blessings  of  a  temporal  nature  unspeakably 
more  valuable:  they  had  in  their  possession  the 
sacred  scriptures,  given  to  make  them  wise  unto 
salvation:  and,  therefore,  Paul  replies  to  his  ques- 
tion, "  Much  every  waij;  chiejiy  because  that  unto 
them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  god.  For 
what  if  some  did  not  believe,  shall  their  unbelief 
make  the  faith  of  God  ivithout  effects  God  forbid: 
yea,  let  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar.^'^ 

*  Rom.  iii.  1—3. 


32  LETTER   II. 

Here  are  two  permanent,  external  benefits 
of  Abraham's  covenant.  Some  of  the  other  fa- 
vours of  this  kind,  mentioned  as  flowing  from  it, 
have  passed  away:  but  the  donation  of  the  saered 
scriptures,  and  the  gift  of  authorized  teachers  of 
divine  truth,  are  as  lasting  as  time,  and  will  be 
enjoyed  by  the  church  as  long  as  the  world  stands. 


LETTER  III. 


General  observations — Great  design  of  the  covenant. 

Christian  Brethren, 

In  my  last  letter,  it  was  proved  that  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Abraham,  comprehends  in  its 
engagements  both  spiritual  and  external  blessings. 
"With  a  view  more  fully  to  illustrate  its  meaning, 
and  bring  into  clearer  light  its  precious  contents, 
permit  me,  in  this,  to  direct  your  attention  to  a 
few  additional  observations. 


General  Observations.  So 

1.  With  respect  to  Abraham  personally,  the 
grand  promise  of  the  covenant  is  to  be  understood 
in  its  sublimest  import.  God  engaged  to  be  unto 
him  a  God,  in  the  most  glorious  sense.  This  has 
already  been  proved. 

2.  By  this  covenant,  Jehovah  stipulated  to  be- 
come, in  the  same  glorious  sense  of  his  promise, 
a  God  unto  all  those  of  Abraham's  seed,  who 
should  imitate  his  faith,  and  walk  in  his  steps.  So 
obviously  this  appears  from  the  preceding  discus- 
sion, that  no  further  confirmation  is  needed. 

3.  The  covenant  did  not  insure  the  conversion 
of  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham.  It  was  indeed 
made  with,  and  the  promises  of  grace  were  exhi- 
bited to,  all  duly  circumcised  Israelites:  but  by  no 
means  does  it  follow,  from  this  fact,  that  God  en- 
gaged to  bestow  his  converting  grace  on  them  all. 
The  covenant  did  not  contain  a  promise  so  abso- 
lute and  universal.  Events  have  made  this  certain. 
Thousands  of  Abraham's  seed,  in  every  age,  wore 
the  covenant- token  in  their  flesh,  who  never  de- 
rived from  their  relation  to  God  any  saving  be- 
nefit, but  lived  and  died  in  impenitence  and  unbe- 
lief: and,  from  this  fact,  we  may,  with  certainty, 
conclude  that,  although  the  offers  of  grace  were 
made  to  all,  and  all  enjoyed  the  instructions  of 
inspired  and  other  divinely  appointed  teachers;  yet 
God  did  not  bind  himself,  by  an  absolute  promise, 
to  give  to  all  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit.   A  sir 


34  LETTER   III. 

milar  fact  occurs  under  the  gospel-dispensation. 
The  grant  of  eternal  life  is,  in  offer,  made  to  all 
who  hear  the  glad  tidings;  yet  how  many  thou- 
sands reject  the  offer,  and,  hy  their  unbelief,  de- 
nying the  truth,  the  infallible  testimony  of  God, 
bring  upon  themselves  an  aggravated  condemna- 
tion? **  If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men,  the  wit- 
ness of  God  is  greater;  for  this  is  the  witness  of 
God  which  he  hath  testified  of  his  Son.  He  that 
believeth  on  tlie  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in 
himself:  he  that  believeth  not  God,  hath  made 
him  a  liar;  because  he  believeth  not  the  record 
that  God  gave  of  his  Son.  And  this  is  the  record, 
that  God  liath  given  to  us  eternal  life;  and  this  life 
is  in  his  Son.''     But 

4<.  The  covenant  did  engage,  that  salvation 
should  he  transmitted  seminally;  and  that,  in 
every  age,  there  should  he,  among  the  Israelites,  an 
election  of  grace.  It  has  been  asserted,  that  the 
carnal  seed  of  Abraham  were  set  apart  to  God, 
and  circumcised  as  his  peculiar  people,  to  intro- 
duce into  the  world  the  Redeemer,  who  received 
his  human  nature  from  them;  and  that,  having  an- 
swered this  purpose,  they  had  no  longer,  by  birth, 
an  interest  in  this  covenant,  and  were  no  longer 
God's  peculiar  people.  In  opposition  to  this  opi- 
nion, it  can,  I  think,  be  clearly  shown,  that  the  car- 
nal seed  of  Abraham  were  consecrated  and  circum- 
eised  for  another  and  more  lasting  purpose;  name- 


Design  of  the  Covenant.  35 

ly,  to  be  a  nursery  to  the  invisible  church:  and 
that  God  did  engage  his  true  spiritual  church, 
consisting  of  real  believers,  should  descend,  in  the 
line  of  Abraham's  natural  and  adopted  seed,  down 
to  the  end  of  time.  In  the  present  stage  of  discus- 
sion, it  will  suffice  to  prove  this  truth  with  respect 
to  the  patriarch's  descendants,  till  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Christian  dispensation. 

Here,  my  brethren,  we  enter  on  an  important 
point;  and  I  beg  your  close  attention  to  the  evi- 
dence that  shall  be  offered  to  establish  it. 

1.  The  transmission  of  saving  blessings  to  A- 
braham's  believing  seed,  appears  clearly  to  have 
been,  so  far  as  human  interest  is  concerned,  the 
covenant's  ultimate  end,  from  this  consideration 
that  it  comprehended  such  blessings.  The  im- 
mediate effect  of  this  divine  constitution,  Avas  the 
regular  organization  of  God's  visible  church  in 
the  patriarch's  family:  and,  as  long  as  his  natural 
posterity  retained  their  covenant-relation  to  their 
God,  it  perpetuated  it  among  them.  When  the 
perpetuity  of  the  covenant,  and  the  interest  of 
Gentile-christians  in  it,  shall  have  been  evinced, 
it  will  be  also  apparent,  that  this  same  divine  con- 
stitution perpetuates  the  visible  church  among 
Abraham's  adopted  seed,  till  the  end  of  time. 
This  establishment  and  propagation  of  the  visible 
church,  seminally,  Avas,  no  doubt,  one  important 
design  of  the  patriarch's  covenant.     Let  it  be  re- 


36    ,  LETTER   III. 

collected,  however,  that  the  visible  church  has 
been  formed  for  gathering  in  the  elect  of  God, 
and  is  used  as  a  means  for  promoting  the  interest 
of  the  invisible  church;  and  it  will  be  evident  that 
this  covenant  contemplated  a  higlier  and  nobler 
purpose,  than  tlie  establisliment,  on  earth,  of  a 
society  bearing  certain  peculiar  relations  to  God 
of  an  external  nature.  It  comprehends,  we  have 
seen,  both  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings;  and, 
hence,  the  conclusion  seems  certain,  that  its  great 
design  must  be  the  bestowmentof  the  latter  benefits 
upon  the  seed  of  Abraham:  the  donation  of  the  for- 
mer being  made  in  due  subserviency.  Christianity 
is  conducive  to  our  present,  as  well  as  to  our  future 
welfare:  for,  says  an  inspired  writer,  ^<  Godliness 
is  profitable  unto  all  things,  having  promise  of  the 
life  that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is  to  come." 
But  would  it  not  be  deemed  utterly  inconclusive, 
were  the  great  design  of  our  holy  religion  as- 
serted, on  the  ground  of  this  text,  to  be  the  happi- 
ness of  man  in  his  present  state?  We  derive  its 
great  design  from  a  view  of  its  most  important 
blessings:  and,  as  i(  secures  to  every  true  believer 
everlasting  salvation,  we  have  no  hesitation  in 
concluding,  that  its  chief  purpose  and  its  ultimate 
end,  witb  respect  io  man's  interest,  is  to  save  his 
soul,  and  make  him  happy  in  a  future  world.  For 
the  same  reason,  we  determine  the  end  of  Abra- 
ham's covenant  to  have  been  the  transmission  of 


Design  of  the  Covenant,  37 

spiritual  benefits  to  the  elect  of  God,  in  the  line  of 
his  natural  posterity. 

The  manner  of  expression  used  in  the  covenant, 
confirms  this  conclusion.  "  I  will  establish  my  co- 
venant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant;" for  what  purpose?  "  to  he  a  God  unto  thee, 
and  to  thtj  seed  after  thee,'^^  Here  the  covenant's 
great  design  is  manifestly  declared.  It  is  nothing 
less,  than  the  bestowment  of  all  spiritual  and  sa- 
ving blessings  comprehended  in  the  promise,  on 
Abraham  and  his  seed;  not  all,  but  as  many  as  the 
Lord  should  call.  If,  by  this  divine  assurance,  no 
more  were  meant  than,  as  some  contend,  that  Je- 
hovah would  take  them  into  a  near  special  external 
relation  to  himself,  and  put  them  in  possession  of 
a  goodly  land,  together  with  many  other  temporal 
blessings;  it  would  certainly  follow,  the  covenant 
had  no  higher  end  in  view.  But  his  promise  means 
vastly  more,  and  engages  that  he  will  be,  to  the 
patriarch,  and  to  all  his  believing  seed,  a  God^  in 
the  most  glorious  sense  of  the  covenant-title.  And 
hence,  it  appears  evident,  this  covenant  contem- 
plated, as  its  great  end,  the  bestowment  of  spiri- 
tual blessings,  life  and  salvation,  on  Abraham  and 
on  his  spiritual  seed,  found  among  his  natural  de- 
scendants, with  whom  the  covenant  was  made, 
and  to  whom  the  promise  was  directed,  ' 

•  Gen.  xvii.  7. 


38 


LETTER   III. 


2.  The  sacred  oracles  were  delivered  to  the 
posterity  of  Abraham.  This  fact  constitutes  a  se- 
cond proof,  that  the  covenant  made  with  him  en- 
gaged to  perpetuate  the  true  church,  and  transmit 
saving  blessings,  in  the  line  of  his  natural  seed. 
None  will  pretend  these  inspired  writings  were 
put  into  their  hands,  merely  to  confer  on  them 
some  temporal  advantages.  They  were  doubtless 
given  to  them  for  the  same  purpose,  for  which 
they  have  been  given  to  us;  namely,  to  lead  them 
to  the  knowledge,  love,  and  service  of  the  true 
God;  and  that  as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eter- 
nal life  might,  by  faith  in  their  promised  Saviour, 
obtain  it.  Now,  the  gift  of  the  holy  scriptures 
was  a  fruit  of  this  covenant;  the  chief  external 
advantage  which  a  Jew,  a  circumcised  descendant 
of  Abraham,  enjoyed  above  others:^  and,  there- 
fore, it  follows,  the  covenant  engaged,  that  salva- 
tion should  be  transmitted  among  them  from  one 
generation  to  another;  because  this  eifect  actually 
resulted  from  the  donation  of  the  holy  scriptures, 
which  was  made  in  fulfilment  of  covenant-promise. 

3.  The  promises  of  converting  and  saving  grace 
in  the  Old  Testament,  furnish  another  argument 
in  favour  of  the  tru  th  for  which  we  contend.  That 
this  part  of  our  sacred  volume  contains  such  pro- 
mises, cannot  be  denied  by  any  acquainted  with 
those  heavenly  records:  nor  can  it  be  denied,  that 

*  Rom.  iii.  l— 3. 


Design  of  the  Covenant,  3» 

they  were  directed  to  Abraham's  natural  seed. 
See  Acts  ii.  39.  These  promises  did  not,  it  must 
he  admitted,  engage  to  effect  the  conversion  of  all 
to  whom  they  were  exhibited.  They  pertained  to 
tlie  visible  church  in  general:  and  God  fulfilled 
them  to  individuals  according  to  his  own  sovereign 
pleasure.  But  the  donation  of  them  certainly  se- 
cured an  election  of  grace,  and  the  preservation 
of  God's  spiritual  church,  among  Abraham's  de- 
scendants, till,  by  unbelief,  they  forfeited  their 
distinguishing  privileges.  <<  Salvation,"  said  Je- 
sus to  the  woman  of  Samaria,  ^<  is  of  the  Jews.^'^ 
This,  then,  must  have  been  the  original  and  great 
design  of  the  patriarchal  covenant;  because  these 
gracious  promises,  being  a  part  of  the  sacred  ora^ 
cles,  one  of  its  capital  fruits,  were  given  to  carry 
it  into  effect,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  to  develop 
more  fully  the  meaning  of  its  primary  promise,  in 
which  all  subsequent  promises  were  virtually  com- 
prised. 

The  reasoning  of  St.  Paul,  in  the  9th  and  11th 
chapters  of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  strongly  cor- 
roborates this  interpretation  of  Jehovah's  design 
in  the  covenant  made  with  his  servant  Abraham. 
He  asserts  explicitly  that  the  promises  pertained 
to  Israel:  and,  from  the  train  of  his  argument,  it 
is  evident  he  allows  that  divine  faithfulness  to 
these  promises,  and  to  the  covenant  in  which  they 
Avere  originally  comprehended,  demanded  their 

*  John  iv,  25. 


^0  XETTER    III. 

fulfilment  in  the  conversion  of  some  of  that  people 
to  whom  they  were  given.     The  deplorable  state 
of  his  <<  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,'^  excited 
in  the  apostle's  benevolent  soul  the  tenderest  com- 
passion; and  he  begins  his  ninth  chapter,  with  ex- 
pressing the  continual  sorrow  which  oppressed  his 
heart  on  their  account.     Having  mentioned  the 
distinguishing  privileges  with  which  they  had  been 
favoured,  he  proceeds  to  vindicate  the  faithfulness 
of  God  to  his  promises  and  covenant,   against  an 
objection  grounded  on  their  seeming  want  of  ful- 
filment.    "  Are  not  this  j>eople,  it  might  be  said, 
Israelites  to  whom  pertain  the  promises,  and  the 
seed  of  Abraham  to  whom  Jehovah  engaged,  by 
covenant,  to  be  their  God?  How,  then,  is  their  pre- 
sent state  reconcilable  with  divine  faithfulness? 
Or,  is  it  possible  that  they  should,  as  intimated, 
forfeit  their  privileges,  and  be  cast  out  of  the 
ehurch?   Has  '  the  word  of  God  taken  none  ef- 
fect?' Has  its  promises  failed  to  be  fulfilled?" 

This  is  the  objection,  which  Paul  anticipates 
and  refutes.  How  does  he  answer  it?  By  denying 
the  promises  to  belong  to  the  Israelites,  or  that 
God  had,  in  his  covenant  with  Abraham,  engaged 
to  bestow  on  his  seed  saving  blessings?  No:  ad- 
mitting both  as  facts,  he  removes  the  apparent 
difficulty,  by  stating  a  grand  distinction  in  regard 
to  the  patriarch's  natural  descendants,  which,  he 
shows,  from  the  scriptures,  God  had  very  early 


Design  of  the  Covenant,  41 

intimated  to  his  church,  woiihl  ever  prevail.  Read 
his  own  words:  "  Not  as  though  the  word  of  Gou 
hath  taken  none  effect.   For  they  arc  not  all,"  the 
true  '*  Israel  which  are  of  Israel;  neither  hecause 
they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham  are  they  all  chil- 
dren: but,  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called^  that 
is,  they  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these 
are  not"  all,  and  merehj  on  that  accoimt,  "  the 
children  of  God.   For  this  is  the  word  of  promise. 
At  this  time  will  I  come,  and  Sara  shall  have  a 
son.    And  not  only  this,  but  when  Rebecca  had 
conceived  by  one,  even  by  our  father  Isaac,  (for 
the  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having 
done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God 
according  to  election  might  stand,  not  of  works, 
but  of  him  that  calleth,)  it  was  said,  The  elder 
shall  serve  the  younger.     As  it  is  written,   Jacob 
have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated."     Here  the 
sacred  writer  clearly  teaches  us,  that  mere  descent 
from  Jacob,  and  mere  connexion  with  the  church 
to  which  the  promises  Avere  given,  did  not  make 
his  children  true,  spiritual  Israelites:  and  that,  al- 
though they  derived  their  desoent  from  Abraham, 
and  were  by  birth  interested  in  his  covenant,  yet 
their  saving  adoption  as  the  children  of  God,  was 
not  the  necessary  result.     The  covenant  did  not 
insure  the  conversion  and  salvation  of  all  his  na- 
tural seed:  and  against  such  a  misconception  of 

his  promise,  Jehovah  had  very  early  guarded  the 

E  2 


4^  LETTER    III. 

church,  by  expelling  Ishmaei  and  his  offsprings 
and  establishing  the  covenant  with  Isaac  and  his 
posterity;  and  afterwards  by  ejecting  Esau  from 
his  birth-right,  and  bestowing  it  on  his  brother 
Jacob.  But,  at  the  same  time  it  must  be  admit- 
ted, the  apostle  does  likewise  teach  us,  that  the 
conversion  and  salvation  of  a  select  portion  of  A- 
braham's  seed  was  secured  by  covenant-promise. 
This  evidently  appears  from  the  seventh  verse; 
"  Neither  because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham 
are  they  all  children:"  clearly  admitting  that  som& 
of  his  seed  were  children.  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and 
their  descendants,  were  the  seed  of  Abraham.  In- 
deed, the  whole  train  of  Paul's  argument,  and 
more  especially  the  distinction  which  he  makes, 
are  founded  on  this  truth.  The  answer  which  he 
gives,  in  his  eleventh  chapter,  to  another  objec- 
tion, places  it  beyond  reasonable  doubt:  "  I  say 
then,  hath  God  cast  away  his"  covenant  "  people? 
God  forbid.  For  I  also  am  an  Israelite,  of  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  God  hath 
not  cast  away  his  people  which  he  foreknew. — 
Even  so  then,  at  this  present  time  also,  there  is  a 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  What 
then?  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which  he  seek- 
cth  for;  but  the  election  hath  obtained  it,  and  the 
rest  were  blinded."* 

*  Chap.  xi.  1,  2,  5,  7. 


Design  of  the  Covenant,  43 

On  the  whole,  from  the  apostle's  reasoning,  we 
are  warranted  in  drawing  this  conclusion:  By  his 
covenant  with  Ahraham,  God  did  not  engage  to 
convert  and  save  all  his  natural  seed;  hut  lie  cer- 
tainly did  promise  that  some  of  them  should,  by 
the  sovereign  application  of  his  grace,  become  his 
spiritual  children,  and  participate  with  their  illus- 
trious father  in  the  saving  blessings  of  his  cove- 
nant: and,  therefore,  if  there  had  not  been  found, 
among  his  natural  seed,  a  constant  succession  of 
true  believers,  the  word  of  God  would  have  failed 
to  produce  its  intended  effect,  and  his  covenant- 
promise  would  not  have  been  fulfilled. 

4.  Facts  prove  the  position  which  has  been 
stated.  Grace  and  salvation  actually  did  descend 
among  Abraham's  posterity,  from  generation  to 
generation;  till,  like  Ishmael  and  Esau,  their 
unbelief  and  rejection  of  the  Messiah,  deprived 
them  of  covenant-privileges.  Till  that  mournful 
event,  among  them  was  constantly  found  the  spi- 
ritual as  well  as  the  visible  church  of  G  od.  .  In  a 
few  years  after  the  death  of  Abraham,  true  reli- 
gion expired  every  where  except  among  his  de- 
scendants. Favoured  by  repeated  communications 
from  heaven,  they  retained  the  knowledge  and 
worship  of  Jehovah,  when  darkness  overshadow  ed 
the  nations,  and  idolatry  universally  prevailed. 
Often,  indeed,  ignorance,  wickedness,  and  idol- 
atry, spread  very  generally  among  this  peculiar 


4!*     ,  LETTER   III. 

people.     Yet,  in  the  worst  of  times,  there  were 
always  found  among  them,  at  least,  a  few  ac- 
quainted with  the  true  God,  and  attached  to  his 
worship  in  opposition  to  that  of  idols:  and  even  in 
that  gloomy  period  when  the  defection  was   so 
great,  that  the  prophet  Elias  complained  he  was 
left  alone  on  the  side  of  truth  and  religion,  Je- 
hovah, as  he  was  assured,  had  reserved  to  him- 
self seven  thousand  men  who  had  not  bowed  the 
knee  to  the  image  of  Baal.^    Various,  indeed, 
was  the  aspect  of  piety.    Sometimes  it  flourished, 
and  at  other  times  it  declined.     But  ia  every  ge- 
neration, there  was,  at  least,  "  a  remnant  accord- 
ing to  the  election  of  grace,^'    The  true  spiritual, 
as  well  as  the  visible,  church,  was  preserved  among 
Abraham's  descendants  from  age  to  age,  till  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles. 

Here  is  an  unquestionable  fact.  In  what  light 
is  it  to  be  contemplated?  Has  it  no  connexion  with 
the  covenant?  Shall  we  consider  it  merely  as  an 
act  of  God's  sovereign  pleasure?  Surely  this  would 
not  be  a  correct  view  of  this  dispensation  toward 
his  church.  By  a  covenant,  containing,  as  has 
been  proved,  spiritual  and  temporal  blessings,  he 
had  promised  to  be,  in  the  fullest  sense,  a  God 
unto  Abraham's  seed:  and,  doubtless,  his  becom- 
ing, by  subsequent  communications  of  his  grace, 
a  God  to  them,  was  a  manifest  fulfilment  of  his 

*  1  Kings  xix.  18.  Rom.  xi,  4. 


Design  of  the  Covenant.  45 

covenant-engagement.  Sovereign,  indeed,  is  the 
Supreme  Being  in  dispensing  his  saving  grace. 
But  unquestionably  it  does  not  derogate,  in  the 
least  degree,  from  his  sovereignty,  to  make  a  free 
and  gracious  promise,  and  then  to  fulfil  it.  He 
might,  had  it  been  his  pleasure,  have  withheld 
the  promise  from  Abraham,  or  he  might  have 
given  it  to  some  other  person:  but  having  made  it, 
his  veracity  was  pledged  to  accomplish  it,  by  per- 
petuating the  church,  and  transmitting  saving 
blessings  among  the  patriarch's  descendants. 

Thus,  by  various  arguments,  has  been  esta- 
blished this  important  truth.  That  the  Mrahamie 
covenant  was  made,  not  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
ushering  the  Saviour  into  the  world,  hut  also  to 
transmit,  seminally,  spiritual  and  saving  hless' 
ings  among  the  patriarch^ s  natural  descendants, 
till,  by  unbelief,  they  forfeited  those  peculiar  privi- 
leges, which  had  so  long  constituted  their  boast  and 
glory.  For  the  accomplishment  of  this  great  de- 
sign, they  were  separated  from  the  world,  and 
impressed  with  the  seal  of  God's  gracious  cove- 
nant. That  "  the  elect  may  obtain  salvation  with 
eternal  glory,"  is  the  end  contemplated  by  the 
gospel.  But  to  attain  this  end,  the  gospel  is,  by 
divine  appointment,  preached  to  all  promiscuously: 
and  God,  by  his  sovereign  grace,  gives  it  an  effec- 
tual application  to  as  many  as  he  hath  chosen.  So, 
for  the  accomplishment  of  tlie  great  design  of  his 


*6  LETTER    III. 

covenant,  God  was  pleased  to  establish  it  with 
Abraham's  seed  generally,  and  direct  the  appli- 
cation of  its  token  to  them,'  that  its  blessings  being 
exhibited  to  all,  he  might,  by  the  secret  and  sove- 
reign operations  of  his  grace,  give  them  an  effec- 
tual application  to  his  chosen,  and  bring  the  chil- 
dren of  promise  to  the  actual  enjoyment  of  them. 
The  patriarch's  posterity  were  formed  into  a  visi- 
ble society,  bearing  peculiar  relations  to  God; 
they  were  made  the  depositary  of  his  heavenly 
oracles;  to  them  were  sent  inspired  prophets,  and 
divinely  commissioned  teachers;  to  them  were  di- 
rected all  the  promises  of  grace  recorded  in  the 
Old  Testament;  on  them  were  poured  out  the  sa- 
cred influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  among 
them  were  constantly  found  the  saints  of  God,  and 
the  heirs  of  glory.  Such  was  the  effect,  and  such 
the  design  of  Abraham's  covenant.  It  constituted 
his  seed  into  a  visible  church,  to  be  a  nursery  both 
for  the  invisible  church,  and  for  heaven.  It  drew 
around  them  a  sacred  enclosure,  within  which  Je- 
hovah stipulated  to  seek  and  find  the  election  of 
his  grace;  and,  in  every  generation,  to  renew  some 
by  his  grace,  and  prepare  them  for  his  eternal 
glory. 

From  the  view  which  has  been  given  of  Abra- 
J*am's  covenant,  it  manifestly  appears,  that,  cor- 
respondent to  the  two  kinds  of  blessings  compre- 
hended in  its  engagements,  it  contemplated  a  two- 


Design  of  the  Covenant.  47 

J*old  seed:  natural  and  spiritual;  children  bybirtli, 
and  children  by  promise.  Jlotli  kinds  Avere  actu- 
ally in  the  covenant;  and,  consequently,  being  Je- 
hovah's peculiar  people,  were  authorized  to  call 
him  their  God.  It  is  manifest,  however,  that  the 
relations  which  united  them  to  him,  though  in 
some  respects  the  same,  vet,  in  others,  were 
widely  difierent.  In  regard  to  both,  it  was  a  co- 
venant-relation: but,  while  the  one  sustained  only 
an  external  union  to  God,  the  other  was  united  to 
him  also  by  a  spiritual  union.  The  natural  seed 
were  really  members  of  the  visible  church,  parta- 
kers of  external  covenant-benefits,  and  invited  to 
accept  of  its  saving  blessings.  But  the  spiritual 
seed  actually  enjoyed  both,  and  were  members  of 
the  invisible  church:  they  were  renewed  by  divine 
grace,  sanctified  by  the  Spirit,  possessed  of  the 
faith  of  their  father  Abraham,  and,  consequently, 
arrayed  in  that  righteousness  by  which  he  was 
justified.  Thus,  the  ground  on  which  the  two  de- 
scriptions of  seed  rested  their  claim  to  Jehovah  as 
their  God,  was  widely  difierent.  To  the  one,  he 
was  a  God  by  a  peculiar  relation  which  he  did  not 
bear  to  the  rest  of  mankind:  but  to  the  other,  he 
was  a  God,  by  a  relation  still  more  peculiar;  a  re- 
lation which  he  did  not  bear  even  to  the  members 
of  his  visible  church,  considered  as  such. 

The  distinction  now  stated  pervades  the  sacred 
scriptures.     It  is  a  key  to  certain  passages,  the 


48  lETTER   III. 

meaning  of  which  cannot  be  opened  without  it.  In 
a  controversy  with  the  Jews,  our  blessed  Lord  ad- 
mits them  to  be  Abraham's  seed,  but  denies  them 
to  be  Abraham's  children:'^  meaning  that,  although 
they  were  descended  from  him  by  natural  genera- 
ration,  yet  they  were  not  his  children  according 
to  the  promise,  nor  imitators  of  his  faith  and 
works.  In  like  manner,  St.  Paul  gives,  and  re- 
fuses to  the  same  person,  the  name  of  a  Jew:  **  He 
is  not  a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly;  but  he  is  a 
Jew  which  is  one  inwardly: f  teaching  us  that  a 
man  may,  in  one  sense,  by  external  relation,  be 
numbered  with  God's  covenant-people,  while,  in 
another  sense,  in  regard  to  spiritual  union,  he  does 
not  belong  to  them. 

This  distinction  prevailed  constantly  in  the 
church,  during  the  former  economy;  and  it  exists, 
and  must  exist,  under  the  present  dispensation. 
For  it  is  a  fact  not  to  be  disputed,  that,  while  true 
believers  sustain  to  God  a  spiritual  union,  and  en- 
Joy  the  saving  blessings  of  his  gracious  covenant; 
there  are  many  who,  although,  on  a  profession  of 
faith,  admitted  into  the  church,  and  enjoying  the 
covenant-seals,  yet,  being  destitute  of  real  reli- 
gion, sustain  only  an  external  relation  to  God. 
The  former  are  the  branches  in  Jesus  Christ  the 
vine,  which  bear  fruit,  and  shall  continue  to  flou- 
rish in  him:  but  the  latter  are  the  branches,  which 

*  John  viii.  37,  39.  f  Rom,  ii.  28,  29- 


Covenant  Perpetual.  49 

bear  no  fruit,  and  are  doomed  to  be  separated 
from  him,  and  cast  into  the  fire.^  In  the  parable 
to  which  we  refer,  let  it  be  observed,  our  Saviour 
allows,  in  respect  to  both  classes  of  persons,  a  real 
union  to  himself:  and  this  amounts  to  a  plain  proof, 
that  the  distinction  formerly  existing  between  the 
people  of  God,  the  members  of  his  church,  has 
not,  as  some  pretend,  been  abolished  by  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation. 


LETTER  IV. 

The  covenant  perpetual. 
Christian  Brethren, 

The  first  part  of  our  discussion  is  now  com- 
pleted. It  has  been  proved,  I  trust  to  your  satis- 
faction, that  the  covenant  of  Abraham  compre- 
hends in  its  engagements  both  external  and  spiri- 
tual blessings;  and  that  the  great  design  of  this 
divine  constitution  was,  not  only  to  perpetuate 
among  the  patriarch's  posterity  the  visible  church, 

*  John  XV.  1 — 6. 
F 


BO  LETTER   IT. 

but  chiefly  to  transmit  semixally  the  blessings 
of  salvation,  and  gather  into  the  invisible  church 
God's  elect  among  that  chosen  people.  You  will 
please  to  bear  in  mind  these  important  truths:  for, 
in  the  course  of  our  investigation,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  refer  to  them  frequently. 

In  this  letter,  I  shall  endeavour  to  establish 

the  PERPETUITY  OF  THE  PATRIARCHAL  COVENANT. 

This  gracious  constitution  was  intended  by  its 
glorious  author,  not  merely  to  answer  temporary 
purposes,  and  last  while  the  Mosaic  economy  con- 
tinued; but  to  endure  as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon, 
and  bless  his  church  with  heavenly  influence,  till 
he  translate  her  from  earth  to  heaven.  We  de» 
monstrate  this  property  of  the  covenant,  by  the 
following  arguments. 

1.  The  covenant  is  expressly  called  everlast- 
ing: <*lwill  establish  my  covenant  between  me 
and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  gene- 
rations, for  an  creHasfm^"  covenant."*  This  term, 
it  is  admitted,  has  sometimes  a  more  limited 
sense,  and  is  connected  with  things  which  last  only 
for  several  ages.  It  is  applied  to  the  priesthood 
of  Aaron,  and  to  the  great  annual  atonement  made 
for  the  Jewish  people;  both  which  have  long  since 
been  abolished.  But  it  will  not  follow,  from  this 
application  of  the  term,  in  these  two  instances, 
and  in  others  of  a  similar  kind,  that  it  should  be 
understood  in  the  same  limited  sense  in  its  ap- 

"  Gen.  xvii   T. 


Covenant  Pei^etual.  51 

plication  to  the  Abraliaiuic  covenant.  It  certainly 
is  applied  to  objects  as  lasting  as  time,  and  to  ob- 
jects absolutely  eternal.  We  read  of  the  everlast- 
ing hills,  the  everlasting  mountains,  the  everlast- 
ing remembrance  of  the  righteous,  everlasting 
life,  everlasting  kindness,  the  everlasting  God. 
Why  then  should  we  not  understand  this  term,  in 
its  apijlication  to  the  covenant,  as  expressing  per- 
petuity? What  just  reason  can  be  assigned  for 
taking  it  in  a  more  limited  sense?  Will  it  be  said, 
the  term  is  applied  to  the  land  of  promise,  from 
which  the  descendants  of  Abraham  have,  forages, 
been  expelled,'  and  that,  therefore,  the  covenant 
ought  not  to  be  considered  as  being  perpetual, 
any  more  than  the  possession  of  Canaan?  We  re- 
ply. Before  a  solid  objection  can  be  founded  on  this 
application  of  the  term,  it  behooves  those  who 
urge  it  to  prove,  that  the  Jewish  people  shall  ne- 
ver return  to  their  ancient  land,  and  occupy  again 
the  inheritance  from  which,  on  account  of  their 
crimes,  they  have  been  ejected.  Their  expulsion 
from  it  no  more  proves  the  grant  to  have  termi- 
nated, at  that  dreadful  period  when  they  became 
vagabonds  over  the  earth,  than  their  former  ex- 
ile, under  the  Babylonish  captivity,  proved  the 
term  of  donation  to  be  then  expired;  unless  it  can 
be  clearly  evinced,  that  they  shall  never  return 
to  their  own  country.  Can  this  be  done?  On  what 
grounds  shall  the  reasoning  proceed?  Can  satis- 
factory proof  be  derived  from  the  present  state  of 


o2  LETTER  IV. 

that  unhappy  people?  They  are  indeed  like  dpy 
bones.  But  the  same  Almighty  power,  which 
made  them  live  when  they  themselves  thought 
deliverance  impossible,  and  that  there  was  no 
more  hope  of  their  being  reorganized  into  a  na- 
tion in  their  own  land,  than  of  bones,  dry  and 
bleached  with  the  sun,  being  raised  to  life  again; 
can,  with  perfect  ease,  breathe  on  them,  and  cause 
them  to  live;  collect  them  out  of  all  the  countries 
whither  they  have  been  driven,  and  reestablish 
them  in  the  country  of  their  forefathers,  in  great- 
er power  and  glory  than  ever.  Indeed  their  pre- 
sent state  renders  it  probable,  that  the  God  of 
Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  their  illustrious 
progenitors,  pitying  their  miseries,  will  at  length 
redeem  them  out  of  the  hands  of  all  their  enemies. 
For  what  purpose  have  they  been,  so  many  ages, 
preserved,  amid  innumerable  hardships,  a  sepa- 
rate people?  No  other  nation  in  similar  circum- 
stances, ever  retained  their  distinctive  character. 
All  captives  have,  sooner  or  later,  lost  the  marks 
which  ditinguished  them,  and  become  incorpora- 
ted with  their  conquerors.  But  the  Jews,  not- 
withstanding all  attempts  by  Christian  nations  to 
destroy  them  as  a  people,  have,  in  spite  of  the 
greatest  and  most  cruel  severity  employed  to  sub- 
due them,  retained  their  distinct  character,  sen- 
timents, and  worship.  How  visible  the  finger  of 
Jehovah  in  this  phenomenon!  For  what  purpose 
this  unusual  interposition?  Why  has  God,  by  his 


Covenant  Perpetual,  53 

providence,  preserved  them  as  a  separate  people? 
Only  to  render  their  future  conversion  tlie  more 
conspicuous  and  remarkahle,  and  then  to  amalga- 
mate them  with  other  Christian  nations?  Or  is  it 
his  intention  to  restore  them  to  their  former  in- 
heritance, as  well  as  to  convert  them  to  the  faith 
of  Christ?  If  we  consult  the  history  of  this  won- 
derful people,  and  the  marvellous  deliverances 
effected  for  them  in  times  past,  there  appears  no- 
thing incredible  in  an  expectation  of  their  return 
to  their  own  land.  The  preservation  of  them  as 
a  distinct  people,  evidently  encourages  it. 

But  we  have  more  than  probability.  Scripture 
prophecy  makes  their  return  certain.  A  careful 
inspection  of  the  writings  of  their  prophets  should, 
I  think,  remove  from  our  minds  every  doubt  on 
this  subject,  and  convince  us,  that  Jehovah  has 
pledged  his  omnipotence  for  their  future  reesta- 
blishment  in  the  land  of  their  fathers.  Permit 
me  to  direct  your  attention  to  a  few  prophecies, 
which  cannot  be  easily  understood  in  any  other 
sense  than  as  certifying  this  event.  Moses,  after 
giving  an  accurate  description  of  the  miseries 
which  have  befallen  his  people^  their  overthrow 
by  the  Romans,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and 
their  dispersion  among  all  nations;*  proceeds  to 
foretell  theii*  return,  in  the  foil. -wing  plain  words; 
*<  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  all  these 
things  are  come  upon  thee,  the  blessing  and  the 

*  Dent.  28,  particularly  from  the  forty-fifth  verse. 
T2 


54  LETTER  IV. 

curse,  which  I  have  set  before  thee,  and  thou 
shalt  call  them  to  mind  among  all  the  nations,  whi- 
ther the  Lord  thv  God  hath  driven  thee,  and 
shalt  return  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  shalt 
obey  his  voice  according  to  all  that  I  command 
thee  this  day,  thou  and  thy  children,  with  all  thine 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul;  that  then  the  Lord 
thy  God  will  turn  thy  captivity,  and  have  com- 
passion upon  thee,  and  will  return  and  gather  thee 
from  all  the  nations  whither  the  Lord  thy  God 
hath  scattered  thee.  If  an\^  of  thine  be  driven  out 
unto  the  outmost  '^aris  of  heaven,  from  thence 
will  the  Lord  thy  God  gather  thee,  and  from 
thence  will  he  fetch  thee:  and  the  Lord  thy  God 
will  bring  \\\^q  into  the  land  whicli  thy  fathers 
possessed,  and  thou  shalt  possess  it;  and  he  will 
do  thee  good,  and  multiply  thee  above  thy  fa- 
thers."* Speaking  of  the  latter  day,  Isaiah  pre- 
dicts the  return  of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land  as 
constituting  one  part  of  its  glory:  **  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  in  that  day,  iUai  the  Lord  shall 
set  his  hand  again  the  second  time  to  recover  the 
remnant  of  his  people,  which  shall  be  left,  from 
Assyria,  and  from  Egypt,  and  from  Pathros,  and 
from  Cush,  and  from  Elam,  and  from  Shinar, 
and  from  Hamath,  and  from  the  islands  of  the 
sea.  And  he  shall  set  up  an  ensign  for  the  na- 
tions, and  shall  assemble  the  outcasts  of  Israel, 
and  gather  together  the  dispersed  of  Judah  from 

*  Deiit.  XXX.  1 — &. 


Covenant  Fej^petual.  5a 

the  four  corners  of  the  earth."  See  Isaiah  xi. 
10 — IC.  See  also  Ezck.  xi.  16 — 20.  Many  other 
quotations  might  be  added;  but  these  few,  so  plain 
and  express,  are  sufficient  to  establish  the  truth, 
that  the  future  return  of  the  Jews  to  their  own 
land,  is  an  event  to  which  we  may  look  forward 
with  full  confidence,*  and,  consequently,  that  the 
€ovenant-grant  of  Canaan  to  them  is  perpetual. 

2.  The  nature  of  the  blessings  promised  in  this 
covenant,  present  us  with  another  proof  of  its 
perpetuity.  The  chief  of  them,  we  have  seen,  are 
spiritual;  and  the  covenant's  great  design  is,  that 
God  might  become  the  God  of  his  elect  among  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  by  bestowing  on  them  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,  and  what  is  inseparably  con- 
nected with  it,  complete  salvation.  Now,  what 
reason  can  he  assigned  for  the  abolition  of  a  co- 
venant formed  for  such  a  purpose,  and  compre- 
hending such  blessings?  Surely,  the  present  dis- 
pensation is  not  too  spiritual  to  admit  its  conti- 
nued operation.  Were  the  blessings  of  righteous- 
ness and  salvation  no  longer  given  to  the  church, 
Ave  might  infer  that  the  covenant  was  abrogated. 
But,  seeingthesehlessingscome,  as  the  scriptures 
foresaw  and  predicted,  upon  the  Gentiles,*  what 
reason  can  any  have  to  assert,  that  the  covenant, 
which  formerly  secured  them  to  believers,  has 
been  annulled?  This  is  contending  against  plain 
matter  of  fact. 

*  Gal.  iii.  8,  9. 


b&  LETTER  IV. 

3.  In  favour  of  the  perpetuity  of  Abraham's 
covenant,  the  express  decision  of  an  inspired  apos- 
tle ma^'  be  produced.  "  Brethren,  I  speak  after 
the  manner  of  men;  Though  it  be  but  a  man's  co- 
venant, yet  if  it  be  confirmed,  no  man  disannulleth, 
or  addeth  thereto.  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed 
were  the  promises  made.  He  saith  not,  And  to 
seeds,  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  seed, 
which  is  Christ.  And  this  I  say,  that  the  cove- 
nant, that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ, 
the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  year» 
after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the 
promise  of  none  effect."*  On  this  passage  audits 
context,  I  make  the  following  remarks: 

1.  The  apostle  asserts  and  proves,  that  the 
«ovenant  made  with  Abraham  was  not  annulled, 
by  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Mount  Sinai. 

2.  He  makes  an  evident  and  great  distinction 
between  the  law  and  the  Abrahamic  covenant;  in- 
asmuch as  he  asserts  that  the  law  could  not  give 
that  life  and  righteousness,  which  were  the  proper 
fruits  of  the  promises  or  covenant.  See  ver.  21, 22. 

3.  He  teaches  us,  that  the  law  was  given,  not 
to  make  void,  but  to  subserve  the  accomplishment 
of  the  promise  or  covenant.   See  verses  21 — 23. 

4.  A  necessary  consequence  of  this  fact  is,  that 
the  abrogation  of  the  law,  in  its  covenant-form, 
eould  not  annul  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  from 

*  Gal.  iii.  15,  to  the  end. 


Covenant  Perpetual,  57 

wliioli  it  was  entirely  distinct,  and  >vliicli  it  was 
intended,  not  to  make  void,  but  to  subserve. 

5.  Now,  if  it  can  be  proved,  that  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  ihe  very  covenant  of  which  we  are  treat- 
ing, then  it  will  follow  that  this  covenant  is  per- 
petual. And  need  proof  be  offered  in  support  of 
so  plain  a  truth?  This  is  the  only  covenant  for- 
mally made  with  the  patriarch,  to  which  the  apos- 
tle can  refers  and,  as  it  comprehended  spiritual 
blessing's,  it  certainly  had  respect  to  Christ,  the 
procurer  of  all  saving  benefits.^  An  objection, 
against  this  interpretation,  has  been  grounded  on 
the  nuraher  of  years  which  the  apostle  states  to 
have  intervened  betw  een  the  giving  of  the  law  and 
the  formation  of  Abraham's  covenant.  As  the 
difference  of  time  is  somewhat  less  than  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years,  some  contend,  he  cannot 
mean  this  covenant.  Not  to  repeat  that  this  is 
the  only  covenant  made  with  the  patriarch  on  re- 
cord, containing  spiritual  blessings,  I  reply:  they 
who  urge  the  objection  will  do  well  to  remark, 
that  the  force  of  the  apostle's  argument  does  not 
depend  on  the  precise  number  of  years,  but  on  the 
prioritij  of  the  covenant.  If,  therefore,  his  argu- 
ment be  correct  (which,  it  is  presumed,  none  will 
question)  on  supposing  the  difference  to  be  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years,  it  must  be  conclusive, 
although  the  difference  should  amount  to  no  more 
than  four  hundred,  or  even  a  less  num])er.     But 

*  See  Letter  2,  p.  27. 


58  LETTER  IV. 

the  fact  is,  the  apostle's  computation  is  accurate. 
Be  begins  it  from  the  date  of  the  first  celebrated 
promise  of  this  covenant;  just  as  Moses  begins  his 
computation  of  the  "  sojourning  of  the  children 
of  Israel  who  dwelt  in  Egypt,"=^  not  from  the  time 
when  Jacob  and  his  family  went  to  reside  in  that 
country,  but  from  the  first  calling  of  Abraham  to 
leave  his  kindred,  and  go  to  a  distant  land.f 

These  arguments,  my  brethren,  derived  from 
the  term  everlasting  applied  to  the  covenant — 
from  the  spiritual  nature  of  its  blessings — and 
from  the  positive  testimony  of  an  inspired  apostle, 
prove,  in  my  apprehension,  conclusively  the  per- 
petuity OF  Abraham's  covenant. 

In  opposition  to  this  important  truth,  it  is  also 
contended,  that  the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  proves  the  abolition  of  the  covenant. 
See  chap.  viii.  6 — 13.  But  the  argument,  derived 
from  this  text,  is  built  on  a  grand  mistake.  It 
confounds  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and 
the  covenant  made  with  his  descendants,  in  their 
national  character,  at  mount  Sinai:  tAvo  covenants 
essentially  diiferent,  as  manifestly  appears,  not 
only  from  a  view  of  their  respective  natures,  but 
from  the  plain  instructions  of  an  inspired  w  riter, 
who  teaches  us  carefully  to  distinguish  between 
the  former  and  the  latter  which  he  denominates 
the  law.:f   The  sacred  writer  to  the  Hebrews  has, 

*  Exod.  xii.  40.  f  See  Doddrige's  note  on  Gal.  iii.  17.  t  See  page  56. 


Covenant  Perpetual.  59 

in  the  context  of  his  disputed  passage,  expressed 
himself  so  fully,  that  it  is  perfectly  easy  to  see 
which  of  these  two  covenants  he  proves  to  he  aho- 
lished.  He  describes  it  sufficiently  to  guard  against 
the  mistake  on  Avhich  the  objection  proceeds:  as 
the  covenant  which  God  made  with  the  Israelites, 
**  in  the  day  when  he  took  them  by  the  hand,  to 
lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt;"  as  the  cove- 
nant which  appointed  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  or- 
dained the  offering  of  gifts  and  sacrifices,  erected 
the  tabernacle,  and  set  up  that  whole  system  of 
worship  which  shadowed  forth  heavenly  things, 
that  is,  the  blessings  and  privileges  of  the  gospel- 
dispensation.^     The  apostle  is  evidently  speaking 
of  the  law  or   Sinai-covenant,     How  erroneous, 
then,  to  contend,  that  this  passage  proves  the 
abrogation  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant;  a  covenant 
of  which  it  does  not,  and  entirely  distinct  from 
that  of  which  it  does,  treat!  As  well  might  it  be 
contended,  that  it  proves  the  abrogation  of  Noah's 
covenant,  which  engaged  the  world  should  never 
be  again  destroyed  by  a  flood. 

*  Heb.  chap.  viii.  and  ix. 


LETTER  y 


GentUe-helievers  have  an  interest  in  the  covenant. 

Christian  Brethren, 

A  TRUTH  of  great  importance  will  now  claim 
your  attention.  In  this  and  the  next  succeeding 
letter,  I  shall  endeavour  to  prove,  that  both  gen- 
tile BELIEVERS  AND  THEIR  CHILDREN  HAVE  AN 
INTEREST  IN  THE  COVENANT  OF  ABRAHAM.     ThC 

proposition  to  be  demonstrated  naturally  divides 
itself  into  two  parts.  Our  first  inquiry  shall  re- 
spect the  interest  of  believers.  Tliat  they  are  in- 
cluded in  this  ever-memorable  and  gracious  cove- 
nant, and  have  a  right  to  its  privileges  and  bless- 
ings, can  be  evinced  by  plain  and  conclusive  evi- 
dence. This  point  was  necessarily  anticipated,  in 
explaining  a  particular  text,  with  a  view  to  prove 
spiritual  blessings  to  be  compreliended  in  the  co- 
venant. But  as  it  is  a  truth  of  great  importance, 
I  sliall  endeavour  to  place  it  in  diffei*ent  lights, 
and  evince  it  by  several  distinct  arguments. 

1.  The  first  shall  be  drawn  from  the  continued 
existence  of  this  covenant.  If  Gentile-believers 
have  not  an  interest  in  it,  then  this  perpetual  co- 
venant has  no  visible  operation.    The  natural  de- 


Interest  of  Believers.  61 

scendants  of  Abraham,  whom  it  formerly  blessed 
with  life  and  salvation,  have  been  shut  out  from 
its  heavenly  benefits.  They  are  no  longer  in  co- 
venant with  the  God  of  their  fathers.  As  Ishmael, 
by  his  profane  mockery,  and  Esau,  by  despising 
his  birth-rightj  so  the  Jews  have,  by  unbelief,  for- 
feited their  ancient  privileges.  The  language  of 
God's  providence  has, ^or  ages 9  been,  "  Fe  are  not 
my  people,''  From  their  apostasy,  they  will  cer- 
tainly be  recovered:  for  it  is  written,  "  There  shall 
come  out  of  Zion  the  Deliverer,  and  shall  turn 
away  ungodliness  from  Jacob."*  But  what  be- 
comes of  this  perpetual  covenant  in  the  mean  time? 
If  Gentile-believers  have  no  interest  in  it,  a  sus- 
pension of  its  visible  operation  must  have  taken 
place  soon  after  the  expulsion  of  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple, and  must  continue  until  they  be  restored  to 
their  forfeited  inheritance.    ' 

Is  this  credible?  "Who  can  believe  that  Abra- 
ham's glorious  covenant^  instituted  to  perpetuate 
the  church  of  God  in  the  world;  visibly  operating 
among  his  descendants  for  so  many  ages;  and  im- 
parting to  circumcised  believers  the  blessings  of 
righteousness,  life,  and  salvation;  has  been  en- 
tirely suspended,  as  to  any  visible  operation,  by 
Jewish  unbelief,  for  almost  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  years?  Surely  this  covenant,  which  wc 
have  seen  to  be  perpetual,  cannot  thus  lie  dormant 

*  Rom.  xi.  26. 
G 


62  LETTER   V. 

and  inactive.  It  must,  ever  since  its  formation, 
have  been  in  continual  and  visible  operation;  and, 
since  the  exclusion  of  God's  ancient  people,  have 
imparted  to  the  Christian  church  light  and  life, 
righteousness  and  salvation.  On  Gentiles  has  de- 
scended, Paul  teaches,  the  blessing  of  Abraham, 
through  Jesus  Christ;  even  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit,  through  faith;  the  Spirit,  that  divine  source 
of  all  spiritual  light,  and  gracious  influence.  Comp. 
Gal.  iii.  14  with  15. 

2.  The  Mnity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
churches,  secures  to  Geniile-helievers  an  interest  in 
this  covenant.  In  several  respects,  these  churches 
maybe  distinguished:  they  bear  diflerent  names; 
they  occupy  different  periods  of  time;  and  they 
flourish  under  different  dispensations.  But  still 
they  are,  in  all  essential  points,  the  same  great 
religious  society;  one  being  a  continuation  of  (he 
other;  and  their  unity  is  no  more  affected  by  tbese 
circumstantial  differences,  tban  the  unity  of  a  na- 
tion would  be  destroyed  by  a  change  in  its  name 
and  government,  in  some  distant  period  after  its 
first  establishment. 

Is  the  Christian  church  a  visible  society,  bear- 
ing a  special  relation  to  God,  and  instituted  for 
the  maintenance  of  his  worship?  Such  was  the 
Jewish  church:  formed  to  maintain  the  worship 
of  the  true  God,  in  opposition  to  that  of  idols;  and 
so  nearly  related  to  him,  that  he  calls  *'  Israel 


Interest  of  Believers,  63 

his  first-born  son."*  Is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the 
head  of  the  Christian  cluirch?  He  was  the  head  of 
the  Jewish  church;  the  angel  who  conducted  her 
through  the  wiklerness,  and  Avhom  tlie  Israelites 
tempted  by  their  rebellious  murmurings.  The  ob- 
ject of  their  worship,  dwelling  in  the  Shechinah 
between  the  Cherubim,  Avas  Jesus  Christ:  and, 
on  this  account,  when  he  became  incarnate,  and 
manifested  himself  to  Israel,  it  is  said  of  him, 
<<  He  came  to  his  oxviif  and  his  own  received  himi 
not."  Is  the  Christian  church  a  nursery  for  hea- 
ven? Such  was  the  Jewish  church;  formed,  as  we 
have  seen,  by  the  covenant  established  with  Abra- 
ham, for  the  great  purpose  of  gathering  in  the 
elect  of  God,  and  preparing  them  for  glory.  The 
political  purposes,  answered  by  the  national  cove- 
nant made  at  Sinai,  were  subservient  to  this  high- 
er end.  Is  the  Christian  church  governed  by  laws 
enacted  by  the  Most  High?  So  was  the  Jewish 
church.  The  same  glorious  gospel,  which  is 
preached  to  us,  was  preached  to  the  Jews;  though 
more  obscurely,  by  types  and  sacrifices,  and  cere- 
monies and  darker  promises.  The  same  blessed 
and  holy  S'pirit,  who  sheds  light,  and  comfort,  and 
glory  on  the  Christian  church,  was  the  source  of 
light  and  holiness  to  the  Jewish  church.  The 
same  method  of  salvation,  which  is  revealed  to  us, 
was  revealed  to  the  Jews.  Abraham,  the  father 
of  the  faithful,  and  all  his  spiritual  children,  un- 

*  Exod.  iv.  22. 


64  LETTER   V. 

dep  both  dispensations^  go  to  heaven  in  the  same 
way,  by  faith  in  the  righteousness  of  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ.  In  these  essential  points,  the  two 
churches  agree;  and,  by  this  agreement,  notwith- 
standing differences  with  respect  to  unessential 
matters,  tliey  are  constituted  one  religious  society 
or  church. 

"Will  it  be  objected,  that  the  Christian  church 
is  composed  of  Gentiles,  and  not  of  the  descend- 
ants of  Abraham?  The  first  members  of  the 
church  of  Christ  were  Jews:  and  the  fact  that  the 
mass  of  its  members  have,  for  ages,  been  Gentiles, 
no  more  destroys  its  unity  with  the  Jewish  church; 
than  the  fact,  that  the  Christian  church  is  now 
composed  of  nations  different  from  those  which 
were  originally  the  component  parts  of  it,  destroys 
its  own  unity.  The  cliurch  of  Christ  is  still  the 
same;  though  she  has  travelled  from  east  to  west, 
and  withdrawn  her  precious  privileges  from  coun- 
tries first  saluted  with  the  tidings  of  salvation, 
and  bestowed  them  on  others  which  were  then  co- 
vered with  pagan  darkness:  and,  if  she  were  to 
retire  from  the  old,  and  select  this  new,  world  as 
the  only  place  of  her  abode,  she  would  still  be  the 
same  church;  founded  in  the  death  of  Christ,  ce- 
mented by  the  blood  of  his  apostles,  and  reared 
by  a  long  succession  of  ministering  servants,  liv- 
ing in  different  ages,  and  in  different  regions  of 
the  earth,  but  animated  by  the  same  heavenly  Spi- 
rit, and  pursuing  the  same  glorious  end.     If  such 


Interest  of  Believers,  65 

changes  affect  not  the  unity  of  the  Christian 
churchy  if,  descending  through  so  many  ages,  and 
diffusing  herself  through  so  many  countries,  she 
remains  the  same  holy  society;  >vhy  should  it  he 
imagined,  that  a  breach  was  made  in  the  unity  of 
God's  church,  by  an  exchange  of  the  Jewish  for 
(he  Christian  dispensation,  and  the  land  of  Judea 
for  the  world  at  large.* 

*  A  decisive  argument,  in  favour  of  the  great  principle  for  which 
Ave  contend,  may  be  derived  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and 
pleaded  against  those  who  admit  believing  Gentiles  to  have  an  inter- 
est in  it.  In  fact,  if  the  Jewish  church  possessed  the  attribute  of 
unity;  if  she  was  but  one  reUgious  society;  then  the  Christian  church 
may  claim  the  same  attribute,  and  is  the  same  society  continued  in 
the  world,  under  a  new  dispensation.  What  constituted  the  unity 
of  the  Jewish  church?  Not  residence  in  the  land  of  Canaan;  for  she 
was  the  church  of  God  while  wandering  in  the  wilderness;-|'  and  she 
remained  such  even  when  carried  away  captive,  and  her  prophets, 
by  the  I'iver  of  Babylon,  hanging  their  harps  on  the  willows,  refused 
to  sing  the  songs  of  Zionin  a  strange  land.  Not  the  temple-worship 
at  Jerusalem,  nor  the  covenant  of  Sinai;  for  she  existed  long  before 
•  the  erection  of  the  temple,  and  the  memorable  transactions  at  the 
sacred  mount,  dwelling  in  the  families  of  the  pati-iarchs.  Not  de- 
scent from  Abraham;  for  both  Ishmael  and  Esau,  together  with  their 
posterity,  were  lineally  descended  from  him,  and  yet  they  formed  no 
part  of  the  church  of  God:  and,  in  subsequent  periods,  the  gi-eat 
mass  of  his  natural  seed  have  been  excluded  from  this  holy  society; 
first  the  ten  tribes,  and  then  the  remaining  tribes,  denominated 
Jews.  What  then  constituted  the  unity  of  the  Jewish  church?  Uniou 
to  one  Supreme  Head;  just  as  these  United  States  make  one  nation, 
by  haA'ing  the  same  rulers  in  the  general  government,  and  living 
under  the  same  general  constitution.     The  covenant  made  -with 

t  Acts  vii.  sa« 
G  2 


66  LETTER    V. 

The  unity  of  the  chuieh  of  God  appears  to  be 
taken  for  granted  by  the  saered  >vriters.  The 
figures  used  by  Paul,  in  illustrating  some  of  his 
arguments,  necessarily  imply  this  important  truth. 
You  find  one  in  Gal.  iv.  1 — 7;  where  he  compares 
the  church,  under  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dis- 
pensations, to  the  different  states  through  which 
an  heir  passes.  He  shows  that,  under  the  former, 
she  resembled  the  condition  of  a  minor,  who,  al- 
though proprietor  of  tlie  whole  inheritance,  yet 
is,  like  a  servant,  under  tutors  and  governors^=^ 
but  that,  under  the  latter,  she  resembles  the  heir 
arrived  at  full  age,  and  put  in  complete  enjoyment 
of  his  inheritance.!  Now,  from  this  passage,  it 
is  evident  that  the  church,  composed  both  of  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  which  has  obtained  the  adoption  of 

Abraham,  constituted  the  church  in  his  family,  and  united  his  seed 
in  subsequent  ages  into  one  holy  society,  under  Jehovah,  their  glo- 
rious Lawgiver  and  Ruler. 

Now,  if  Gentile-believers  have  an  interest  in  this  covenant,  it 
must  be  a  necessary  consequence,  that  this  constitution  produces, 
•with  respect  to  them,  the  same  result,  which  it  did  with  respect  to 
Abraham's  descendants:  It  must  unite  them  to  one  head,  Jehovah, 
and  into  one  holy  society, — one  visible  church.  And  from  this  ac- 
knowledged principle,  follows  another  necessary  consequence:  name- 
ly, that  the  Christian  and  Jewish  churches  are  but  two  parts  of  the 
same  whole,  or  the  same  holy  society,  existing  in  two  different  peri- 
riods,  and  under  some  diversity  of  privilege  and  government:  just  as 
the  chuich  in  the  family  of  the  patriarchs,  and  the  church  settled ia 
the  promised  laud,  though  occupying  different  periods  and  placed 
under  different  regulations,  were  the  same  church. 

*  Verse  3.  t  Verse  4,  5. 


Interest  of  Belictevs.  67 

sons,  is  the  same  church  which  was  formerly  un- 
der bondage  to  the  elements  of  the  world,  that  is, 
to  the  ceremonial  law;  and  that  the  change  of 
dispensation,  which  it  has  undergone,  no  more  af- 
fects its  unity,  than  the  different  states  of  mino- 
rity and  manhood,  tlirough  which  an  heir  passes, 
affect  the  identity  of  an  individual. 

This  illustration  of  Paul  constitutes  a  clear 
proof  of  the  unity  of  the  church.  His  comparison 
assumes  it  as  an  acknowledged  principle.  Deny 
it,  and  you  destroy  the  propriety,  as  Avell  as  the 
force  of  his  figure.  For,  if  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian churches  be,  not  one,  but  two,  entirely  dis- 
tinct and  different  from  each  other,  it  might  be 
consistent  to  compare  one  to  the  state  of  a  minor, 
and  the  other  to  that  of  an  heir  arrived  at  full 
age:  but  it  would  be  highly  improper  to  liken  the 
former,  which  on  this  supposition  continued  under 
bondage  till  its  dissolution,  to  an  heir  passing  from 
his  minority  and  subjection  to  governors  to  man- 
hood, and  entering  on  the  full  possession  of  his 
inheritance;  and  still  more  improper  to  represent 
Gentile-converts  as  having  been  in  bondage  to  the 
ceremonial  law.  But,  admitting  this  great  prin- 
ciple, the  figure  is  correct  throughout,*  and  the 
Galatian  believers  were  properly  said  to  have  been 
in  subjection  to  the  law,  because  they  were  mem- 
bers of  that  church  which  had  been  in  bondage. 

Another  clear  proof  of  the  church's  unity,  i& 
found  in  Ephes.  ii.  1 — :22.     There  the  apostle  re- 


68  LETTER   V. 

presents  the  Gentiles,  formerly  "  afar  off,  aliens 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers 
from  the  covenant  of  promise,*'*  as  being  **  made 
nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christy  so  that  they  are  no 
more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens 
with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God:''| 
and  as  parts  of  that  holy  temple,  which  had  for 
its  foundation  the  prophets,  as  well  as  the  apostles^ 
of  that  church  united  into  one  by  a  common  Sa- 
viour, <*  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  cor- 
ner-stone." How  was  this  union  between  Jew  and 
Gentile  effected?  by  destroying  that  church  of 
God  which  had  existed  many  ages,  and  forming 
another  entirely  and  essentially  different?  By  no 
means:  it  was  effected  by  breaking  down  **  the 
middle  wall  of  partitioii;^^  by  "  abolishing  the" 
cause  of  **  enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments, 
contained  in  ordinances;  by  giving  the  church  a 
new  form  of  government,  suited  to  her  enlarge- 
ment by  the  conversion  of  many  nations.  Gentiles 
were  by  faith  made  citizens  of  the  same  common- 
wealth of  Israel,  members  of  the  same  church, 
parts  of  the  same  household  of  God,  which  had 
existed  for  ages;  and  were  brought  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  same  covenant-privileges,  the  same 
promised  blessings,  though  greatly  increased, 
which  the  church,  the  Israel  of  God,  had  enjoyed 
before  the  coming  of  Christ.    All  this,  I  think, 

*  Verse  12.  f  Verse  19. 


Interest  of  Believers,  69 

must  appear  to  anyone  who  examines  the  passage 
without  prejudice- 

We  adduce  hut  one  more  passage  of  sacred 
scripture,  in  support  of  the  unity  of  the  church. 
It  is  is  recorded  in  Rom.  xi.  17 — 24.  In  this  text, 
St.  Paul  compares  the  church  to  a  good  olive-tree, 
planted  in  a  sacred  enclosure,  and  highly  culti- 
vated^ the  Jews  to  natural  branches,  and  believ- 
ing Gentiles  to  branches  taken  from  a  wild  olive- 
tree,  and  grafted  into  the  good  one,  so  as  to  par- 
take of  its  root  and  fatness.  Let  it  he  carefully 
observed,  that  the  good  olive-tree  of  which  the 
Jews  were  natural  branches,  and  from  which  they 
were,  in  consequence  of  unbelief,  broken  off,  is 
the  very  same  tree  into  which  Gentiles  were  in- 
grafted; the  very  same  into  which  the  Jews  shall, 
on  their  conversion,  be  grafted  again.  Now,  is 
this  comparison  reconcilable  with  the  sentiment, 
that  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  are  two 
churches  entirely  and  essentially  different?  On 
this  supposition,  the  Gentiles  were  not  grafted 
into  the  Jewish  olive-tree;  nor  can  the  Jews,  when 
converted,  be  grafted  in  again;  for  the  tree  has 
perished;  the  Jewish  church  has  long  ago  been 
destroyed.  On  this  supposition,  the  Jews  will  be 
introduced  into  a  church  of  which  they  never 
formed  a  part;  grafted  into  an  olive-tree  from 
which  they  were  never  broken  off,  and  of  which 
they  never  were  the  natural  branches.  But  ad- 
mitting the  truth  for  which  we  plead,  the  church 


70  LETTER   ¥• 

of  God  to  be  one,  and  its  unity  unimpaired  by  a 
change  in  external  dispensations,  the  Christian 
being  only  a  continuation  of  the  Jewish  churchy 
and  the  figure  appears  natural  and  just,  expres- 
sive and  beautiful.  The  Gentiles  do  indeed  par- 
take of  the  root  and  fatness  of  that  olive-tree,  from 
which  the  Jews  were  broken  off;  enjoying  those 
very  covenant-privileges  and  promises,  which  the 
latter  forfeited  by  their  unbelief:  and  when  the 
unhappy  descendants  of  faitliful  Abraham  shall 
turn  to  the  Lord,  they  will  be  brought  into  the 
Christian  church;  and,  by  union  to  it,  will  be 
grafted  into  their  own  olive-tree,  and  recover  those 
very  covenant-privileges  and  promises  which  they 
formerly  lost. 

We  may,  then,  assume  the  unity  of  the  church 
of  God  as  a  sound  and  established  principle;  a 
principle  flowing  from  the  very  nature  of  this  holy 
society,  and  sanctioned  by  apostolic  authority. 

From  this  principle,  we  infer  the  interest  of 
Gentile-believers  in  the  covenant  of  Abraham: 
for,  being  members  of  that  very  church  to  which 
this  covenant  w  as  granted,  they  must  have  a  claim 
to  its  promised  blessings.  Christians,  by  incor- 
poration into  the  church  of  God,  have  succeeded 
the  Jews  in  the  enjoyment  of  all  privileges  and 
blessings  that  remain  unrevoked,  and  are  bound 
to  observe  all  general  laws  which  have  not  been 
repealed;  just  as  a  foreigner,  on  being  made  an 
adopted  citizen  of  this  country,  acquires  all  the 


Interest  of  Believers,  71 

rights,  and  comes  under  all  the  obligations  of  na- 
tural born  citizens.  And  as  this  covenant,  by 
which  the  church  was  regularly  organized  in  A- 
braham's  family,  is  perpetual,  believers  must,  in 
right  of  their  adoption,  have  a  complete  interest 
in  all  its  promised  benefits, 

3.  Believing  Gentiles  are  denominated  the  seed 
and  the  children  of  Abraham,  They  are  the 
children  of  the  promise^  given  to  Christ  by  his  Fa- 
ther's promise;  and  are,  therefore,  as  Paul  teach- 
es, Rom.  ix.  8,  "  counted  for  the  seed;"  that  spi- 
ritual seed  which  the  promises  made  to  Abraham 
especially  contemplated.  In  chapter  iv.  16.  of  the 
same  epistle,  we  are  plainly  taught,  that  the  pa- 
triarch's seed  is  composed,  not  only  of  his  natural 
descendants,  who  were  under  the  law;  but  also  of 
Gentiles  who  imitate  his  faith,  although  they  are 
not  his  children  by  carnal  descent,  nor  under  the 
law:  "Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be 
by  grace;  to  the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to 
all  the  seed;  not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law, 
but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham, 
who  is  the  father  of  us  all."  And,  in  Gal.  iii.  7, 
39,  the  apostle  speaks  still  plainer,  and  expressly 
denominates  Gentile-believers  the  children  and 
seed  of  Abraham:  <<  Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they 
which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of 
Abraham."  "  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  pro 


72  LETTER  V. 

Now,  Gentile-believers,  being  the  seed  of  A- 
braham,  must  unquestionably  have  an  interest 
in  that  covenant,  which  was  made  with  their  il- 
lustrious parent,  and  with  his  seedj  not,  indeed, 
with  ull  his  carnal,  but  certainly  with  all  his  spi- 
ritual seed.  Children  by  adoption  inherit  with 
children  by  birth,  from  their  common  parent. 
This  point  is  decided  by  the  text  just  quoted;  in 
which  St.  Paul  affirms  believers  to  be  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise. 
What  promise  ?  The  great  promise  of  the  cove- 
nant, securing  to  all  his  spiritual  seed,  righteous- 
ness, life,  and  salvation;  in  which  God  engages  to 
be  to  him  and  to  his  believing  seed,  a  God  in  the 
noblest  sense  of  the  promise. 

4.  This  covenant  constituted  Mrdham  the  fa-' 
ther  both  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches f  or, 
in  other  words,  of  believers  in  all  nations,  till  the 
end  of  time  The  patriarch  must  sustain  a  pater- 
nal relation  to  all  believers,  or  they  could  not  sus- 
tain to  him  the  relation  of  children.  These  are 
correlates.  His  character  as  father  of  both  church- 
es is  expressly  declared  in  Rom.  iv.  11,  12.  In 
illustrating  that  text,  it  was  proved,  that  his  pa- 
ternal relation  to  believers  was  constituted  by 
this  covenant;  that,  on  account  of  this  relation  to 
his  spiritual  seed  among  Gentile  nations,  as  well 
as  among  his  natural  descendants,  his  name  was 
changed  frqm  Mram  to  Mraham;  that,  as  his 


Interest  of  Believers.  73 

children,  lientile-believers  receive,  by  inheri- 
tance, spiritual  blessings;  such  as  justification  by 
faith,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  that  he 
was  constituted  a  father  to  them,  for  the  very 
purpose  of  transmitting  to  them  these  benefits  of 
the  covenant.^  Can  a  doubt,  then,  remain,  Avhe- 
ther  Gentile-belicYers  have  an  interest  in  this 
covenant,  which  constituted  Abraham  their  fa- 
ther in  order  to  convey  to  them  its  invaluable 
blessings?  Unquestionably,  its  benefits  must  be- 
long to  all  his  seed  contemplated  in  it:  and  to  con* 
tend  against  the  interest  of  any  part  of  them,  is 
as  unreasonable  and  unjust,  as  it  would  be  to  con- 
tend against  the  right  of  an  adopted  child  to  a 
share  in  his  father's  estate,  although  the  will  of 
the  deceased  expressly  recognised  his  right. 

Prejudice,  arising  from  attachment  to  a  fa- 
vourite tenet,  may  load  some  to  attempt  to  dis- 
prove the  right  of  Gentile-believers  to  claim,  with 
their  Jewish  brethren,  a  portion  in  their  common 
father's  inheritance:  but,  so  long  as  an  inspired 
writer  advocates  their  cause,  all  such  endeavours 
must  be  fruitless.  Their  right  is  asserted,  and 
powerfully  maintained  by  the  great  apostle.  lie 
not  only  proves,  as  we  have  already  shown,  that 
Abraham  was,  by  this  covenant,  constituted  fa- 
ther of  Gentile-beiievers  to  transmit  to  them  its 
blessiisgs;  bat  also,  that  the  covenant  was  design- 
cdly  so  contrived  as  to  secure  its  benefits  to  them^ 

*  See  Letter  II,  pages  17—25, 
H 


T^  ILETTER   \I. 

as  ^fell  as  to  his  natural  desceiulants.  See  Rom. 
iv.  13 — 17.  The  promise,  mentioned  in  the  thir- 
teenth verse,  is,  in  no  other  part  of  sacred  scrip- 
ture, expressed  in  the  same  words.  It  is,  how- 
ever, equivalent  to  the  quotation,  in  the  seven- 
teenth verse,  taken  from  this  very  covenant:  "  J 
have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations:^'  and, 
therefore,  we  might  with  propriety  substitute,  for 
the  term  promisef  the  w  ord  covenant,  throughout 
the  apostle's  argument;  or  use  them  interchange- 
ahlifi  as  he  himself  does,  w  hile  reasoning  on  the 
same  subject,  justification  by  faith,  in  his  epistle 
to  the  Galatians.    See  chap.  iii.  11 — 29. 


LETTER  YI. 

Children  have  an  interest  in  this  covenant, — In 
tvhat  respects  the  Christian  surpasses,  in  spiri- 
tuality, the  Jewish  dispensation. 

Chkistiax  Brethhen, 

YoiR  right  to  share  in  the  blessings  of  your 
father  Abraham,  has  been  established.  By  argu- 
ments founded  on  the  continued  existence  of  his 
covenant, — on  the  unity  of  the  church, — on  the 
facts,  that  believing  Gentiles  are  denominated  his 


Children- s  IntcvtsU  75 

seed,  and  that  he  was,  hy  tliis  covenant,  consti- 
tuted their  father; — by  these  arguments,  all  along 
confirmed  by  apostolic  authority,  it  has  been  am- 
ply proved,  That  Gentilehelievers  have,  ivith  tht 
patriarch^ s  natural  descendants,  a  common  inte- 
rest in  this  Messed  covenant. 

In  this  letter,  your  attention  will  be  directed 
to  that  important  question  relative  to  the  right  of 
children  under  the  present  dispensation.  That 
they  had  formerly  an  interest  in  Abraham's  cove- 
nant, is  universally  admitted.  But  it  is  strenu- 
ously  contended  by  many,  that  their  covenant-in- 
terest perished  with  the  Mosaic  economy.  We 
rise  up  in  defence  of  our  little  ones,  and  maintain 
their  blessing  to  be  as  durable  as  the  covenant  it- 
self. Grant  me  your  attention,  and  I  will  endea- 
vour to  establish  this  truth,  so  dear  to  every  heart 
that  understands  its  importance,  by  fair  and  satis- 
factory arguments. 

1.  Tlie  comprehensive  import  of  the  term  seed, 
proves  the  right  of  children  to  covenant-blessings. 
It  is  certain,  that  Abraham's  natural  descendants 
were  comprised  under  this  term;  because  the  to- 
ken of  the  covenant  was,  by  divine  appointment, 
applied  to  them:  and  it  is  equally  certain,  that  the 
term  retained  its  original  signification  till  our  Sa- 
viour's incarnation;  not  from  any  error  in  the 
opinion  prevalent  among  the  Israelites,  but  from 
a  decision  of  God  himself.    <*  This  is  my  covenant 9 


76  XETTER   VI. 

ivhicli  ye  shall  keep  between  me  and  i/ow,  and  thy 
seed  aftei'thee;  JBrcri/ man-child  among  you  shall 
le  circumcised.  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh 
of  your  foreskin;  and  it  shall  he  a  token  of  the 
covenant  betwi.xt  me  and  you. — And  the  uncircum- 
cised  man-child  f  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not 
circumcised,  that  soul  shall  he  cut  off  from  his  peo- 
ple; HE  HATH  BROKEN  MY  COVENANT."'^    <'  Yc  UVt 

the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  oftiie  covenant 
which  God  made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto 
.Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of 
the  earth  be  blessed.'^jf 

Thus,  the  meaning  of  this  term  was  settled  by 
divine  authority,  and  received  and  acted  on  by  the 
church,  during  many  successive  ages. 

"Why  should  not  the  same  original  meaning  of 
this  term  be  retained  under  the  Christian  econo- 
my? Why  set  to  its  comprehension  limits  which 
it  never  had  before;  so  as  to  exclude  the  great 
body  of  those  who  were,  from  the  beginning,  in 
covenant  with  God,  and  denominated  the  seed  of 
Abraham?  Has  the  term  undergone  a  material 
alteration  in  its  original  meaning?  When?  By 
what  authority?  The  extent  of  this  term  being 
defined  by  the  Maker  of  (he  covenant,  his  autho- 
rity, it  is  manifest,  signified  either  formally  or,  at 
least  impliedly,  must  be  necessary  to  diminish 
that  extent.  If  he  have  expressed  his  will  to  this 
effect,  it  can  be  shown.     Let  tlie  passage  be  pro- 

*  Gen.  xvil.  10,  11,  14.  f  ^^^^  »"•  25. 


Children's  Interest.  77 

iliiced.  In  vain  arc  Ihe  inspired  records  searched 
for  any  intimation  of  the  kind.  Surely,  it  can  ne- 
yer  be  fairly  pleaded,  in  proof  of  an  important  al- 
teration in  this  term,  that  the  apostle  shows  it 
comprehends  true  believers  among  Gentile  na- 
tions; for  he  cquaiJy  proves  it  to  have  compre- 
hended, in  a  special  manner,  true  believers  among 
Abraham's  natural  descendants:  and,  therefore, 
if  the  children  of  Christian  parents  are,  on  this  ac- 
count, to  be  excluded,  the  children  of  the  Jews 
too  ought,  for  the  same  reason,  to  have  been  ex- 
cluded. But  this  would  have  contravened  a  posi- 
tive determination  of  God  himself.  The  fact  is, 
from  the  beginning,  the  term  respected  chiefly 
the  spiritual  seed,  without  excluding  the  natural 
seed. 

2.  When  a  Gentile  was  converted  from  idolatrij 
to  the  worship  of  the  true  God,  his  children,  he- 
ing  cireumcised  as  well  as  himself,  became  incor- 
porated  with  the  Jewish  people^  and  were  admitted 
to  the  enjoijment  of  all  their  privileges.  "  And  when 
a  stranger  shall  sojourn  with  thee,  and  will  keep 
the  passover  to  the  Lord,  let  all  his  males  be  cir- 
cumcised, and  then  let  him  come  near  and  keep  it; 
and  he  shall  be  as  one  that  is  born  in  the  land:  for 
no  uncjrcumcised  person  sliall  eat  thereof.  One 
law  shall  be  to  him  that  is  home-born,  and  unto  the 
stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you.''*  That  eir- 

•  Exod.  xii.  48,  49. 
h2 


7S  XETTER   VI. 

cumcision  confirmed  to  strangers  an  interest  in 
Abrsiliam's  covenant,  as  Avell  as  in  the  national 
compact,  is  evident  from  the  provision  originally 
made  in  the  former?  for  the  admission  of  children 
born  of  Gentile  parents.  The  patriarch  was  com- 
manded to  apply  the  token  of  his  covenant  to  such 
as  were  not  his  natural  seed:  <*  He  that  is  born  in 
thy  house,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  thy  money, 
must  needs  be  circumcised."^^ 

Now,  may  we  not  infer,  from  this  fact,  that 
children  have,  in  common  with  Christian  parents, 
an  interest  in  the  covenant?  For  if,  under  the  for- 
mer dispensation^  the  offspring  of  Gentiles  were 
received  into .  it,  :aVd4>iid  it  confirmed  to  them  by 
the  application  of  its  seal;  why  are  they  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  it  under  thf  Christian  dispensation? 
Was  not  their  admissioH:  formerly  a  plain  intima- 
tion, that  they  would  be  admitted,  when  Gentile 
nations  should,  by  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  be 
brought  into  the  church?  Had  Jehovah  directed 
their  exclusion,  we  should  have  bowed  to  his  sove- 
reign authority.  But,  as  it  appears  he  has  given 
no  such  direction,  it  follows  conclusively,  that  the 
long  continued  practice,  founded  on  positive  pre- 
ceptf  should  still  prevail;  and  that  we  are  bound  to 
recognise  children  as  being  in  the  covenant  toge- 
ther with  their  parents.  In  confirmation  of  this 
right  of  our  infant  offspring,  may  be  adduced  the 
following  text:   **  And  the  scripture,  foreseeing 

*  Gen.  xvii.  13. 


Children's  Interest*  79 

that  God  would  justif;^  Ihe  licatlien  through  faith, 
pi  cached  beiore  the  gospel  unto  Abruhiim,  sayingf 
In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.  So  then  they 
\yhiv:h  be  ol*  faith  are  blessed  with  faithtul  Abra- 
ham.'"* How  was  Abraham  blessed:  iiy  personal 
justification  undoubtedly :  and  so  are  Gentile-be- 
lievers. But  was  he  not  also  blessed  by  the  inte- 
rest of  his  children  in  that  covenant  which  exhi- 
bited to  them  the  righteousness  of  faith?  Certainly. 
If,  then,  his  blessing  reached  to  his  offs\wingf 
must  we  not  conclude,  that  the  blessing  of  Chris- 
tian believers,  who  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abra- 
ham, terminates  not  in  themselves,  but  extends  to 
their  offspring^ 

3,  Jf  children  have  no  interest  in  the  covenant, 
then  it  will  follow  f  that  an  important  privilege 
of  it  has  been  revoked^  under  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion.  That  (he  admission  of  children  into  the  cove- 
nant, and  the  application  of  its  seal  to  them,  under 
the  Jewish  economy,  was  a  privilege  granted  to 
parents,  will  not,  we  presume,  be  denied  by  any. 
Nor  can  it  be  denied,  by  those  who  understand  the 
nature  of  this  covenant,  to  have  been  an  important 
privilege.  F'or  what  did  it  import?  What  did  the 
covenant  exhibit?  It  exhibited  the  righteousness 
of  faith,  and  all  saving  blessings  to  every  cove- 
nantee.    It  gave  him  a  solemn  pledge,  that  God 

*  Gal.  iu.  8,  9. 


so  ^1  LETTER   VI. 

was  willing  to  be  reconciled  to  him,  through  the 
anticipated  merits  of  his  Son,-. that  he  was  willing 
to  become  his  God,  not  only  by  extersal  relation, 
but  by  spiritual  union  and  communion.  It  assured 
all  who  wore  the  seal,  that  they  formed  a  part  of 
that  holy  society,  which  Jehovah  had  set  apart  for 
himself,  and  on  which  he  was  bestowing  the  bless- 
ings of  salvation;  not  indeed  on  all,  but  on  as  many 
of  them  as  he,  in  exercise  of  his  sovereign  grace, 
should  be  pleased  to  select.  Was  not  this  a  pri- 
vilege, and  a  great  privilege?  One  might  as  well 
deny  it  to  be  a  blessing  to  live  in  a  society  where 
the  gospel  is  preached,  and  the  institutions  of  it 
are  observed;  as  deny  the  covenant-interest  of  Jew- 
ish children  to  have  been  an  important  blessing. 

The  principle  just  contended  for  being  as- 
sumed, it  will  follow,  that  the  people  of  God  are 
deprived  of  a  very  important  privilege,  under  the 
Christian  economy,  if  their  children  be  excluded 
from  the  covenant.  To  admit  this,  would  be  to 
violate  all  analogy  in  the  government  of  God  over 
his  church.  Is  it  not  plain  matter  of  fact,  that 
his  people  have  been  favoured,  as  with  a  gradual 
increase  of  revealed  knowledge,  so  with  a  gradual 
increase  of  privilege?  When  God  commenced  the 
patriarchal  dispensation  with  Abraham,  he  re- 
voked no  privilege  previously  granted  to  his 
church.  Abraham  and  his  descendants  continued 
to  enjoy  what  had  been  conferred  on  their  prede- 


Childrm^s  Interest.  81 

cessors,  together  with  additional  light  and  privi- 
leges  vouchsafed  to  them.  When  the  national 
compact  was  made,  it  abrogated  no  former  privi- 
lege^ hut  was,  as  Moses  (see  Deut.  xxix.  12,  13) 
and  Paul  (see  Gal.  iii.  15^-19)  concur  in  teaching, 
intended  to  aid  in  accomplishing  the  promises 
made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  And  shall  we,  in 
opposition  to  the  analogy  of  former  dispensations, 
believe  that,  under  the  Christian  economy,  which 
has  so  much  increased  the  light  and  blessings  of 
the  church,  tlie  great  privilege  of  children  has 
been  revoked;  that  they  are  no  longer  permitted 
to  stand,  with  their  parents,  in  a  covenant-relation 
to  God?  Surely,  those  who  contend  against  a  right 
secured  to  them  by  solemn  compact,  and  confirmed 
by  an  appointed  seal,  ought  to  produce  some  re- 
pealing act  of  our  heavenly  Lawgiver;  before  they 
deprive  them  of  this  precious  privilege,  enjoyed 
through  many  successive  generations,  from  Abra- 
ham to  Christ;  and  reduce  the  offspring  of  God's 
covenant-people  to  a  level  with  the  children  of 
aliens  from  his  covenant-promises!  But  in  vain 
will  search  be  made  for  such  a  repealing  act.  So 
far  from  being  abrogated,  the  pen  of  inspiration 
has  proved  that  the  covenant  remains  in  full  and 
unabated  force.* 

4.  The  accomplishment  of  the  grand  purpose 
ftfthis  covenant,  renders  the  interest  of  children  in 

*  See  Letter  IV.  p^rricularly  from  page  56  to  58, 


82  LETTER   VI. 

itf  as  necessary  under  the  present,  as  under  the  pre- 
ceding dispensation.  It  has  already  been  proved, 
that  the  great  design  which  God  had  in  view  when 
he  condescended  to  make  this  covenant,  was,  not 
only  to  introduce  his  Messiah  into  the  world,  but 
also  to  perpetuate,  in  the  line  of  Abraham's  pos- 
terity, his  spiritual  church,  and  gather,  from 
among  them,  a  people  to  his  praise;  and  that  this 
constituted  a  special  reason,  why  the  patriarch's 
carnal  seed  were  generally  admitted  into  the  co- 
venant, and  impressed  with  its  seal,* 

If,  then,  it  can  be  proved  that  Jehovah's  ori- 
ginal design  abides  unaltered,  the  interest  of  chil- 
dren in  his  covenant  will  be  firmly  established: 
and  it  will  be  in  vain  to  urge  as  an  objection,  that 
the  great  purpose  of  introducing  Messiah  into  the 
world,  has  been  accomplished;  because  another 
important  purpose,  to  which  our  Saviour's  incar- 
nation was  subservient,  remains  yet  to  be  fulfilled; 
namely,  that  of  bringing,  to  the  enjoyment  of  sav- 
ing blessings,  the  elect  of  God  among  the  seed  of 
his  covenant-people. 

Much  need  not  be  said  to  make  out  this  point. 
The  covenant,  as  has  been  evinced,  remains  in  full 
force;  unimpaired,  either  by  the  introduction,  or 
by  the  abrogation,  of  the  law  or  Sinai-covenant.f 
It  cannot,  then,  be  reasonably  supposed,  that  the 
great  design  of  it  has  been  laid  aside,  or  materially 
and  essentially  altered.     Did  the  spiritual  church 

*  See  Letter  in.  f  See  Letter  IV. 


Children's  Interest.  83 

descend,  from  generation  to  generation,  among 
the  descendants  of  Abraham,  natural  and  adopted; 
and  was  an  election  of  grace  always  found  among 
them?  and  can  it  be  imagined  that  the  spiritual 
church  no  longer  descends  in  the  line  of  God's 
covenant-people's  seed;  that  the  blessings  of  grace 
no  longer  flow  down  among  them,  as  in  their  ap- 
pointed and  steady  channel?  Did  the  Most  High 
show  such  a  regard  to  his  people's  offspring,  under 
the  Jewish  economy,  and  bind  himself  by  covenant- 
engagement  thus  to  treat  them?  and  does  he, 
under  the  present  economy,  act  so  differently,  as 
to  show  no  more  regard  to  them  than  to  the  chil- 
dren of  aliens  from  his  church?  Has  the  covenant 
undergone  an  alteration  so  important  and  essen- 
tial, that  the  infant  children  of  Abraham's  adopt- 
ed seed  are  cast  out;  although  from  its  original 
establishment,  through  a  long  course  of  ages,  till 
the  birth  of  our  Redeemer,  they  were  admitted  to 
share  in  its  blessings,  and  had  their  interest  in 
them  confirmed  by  an  appointed  seal?  Who  can 
believe  this;  especially  when  it  is  considered  that 
sacred  scripture  speaks  not  a  word  about  any  such 
change?  An  alteration  so  great  and  important, 
would  indeed  have  set  aside  the  original  and  grand 
design  of  this  covenant;  and,  in  doing  so,  would 
have  affected  its  essential  engagements  to  that  de- 
gree, as  almost  to  destroy  the  very  existence  of 
the  covenant  itself.  Such  a  change  is  utterly  at 
variance  with  that  lucid  and  decisive  argument, 


S*  BETTER   VI. 

which  Paul  urges,  with  great  force,  in  the  third 
chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians. 

When  the  Jews  shall  have  heen  converted  to 
the  Christian  faith,  they  will  recover  all  their  for- 
mer covenant-rights  and  privileges^  and  their  chil- 
dren will,  by  virtue  of  God's  unrevoked  promise, 
be  brought  again  into  the  same  relation  tc  hira 
which  they  so  long  enjoyed;  and  will  again  become 
a  nursery  to  the  spiritual  ehureh,  descending 
among  them  from  generation  to  generation.  This 
statement  cannot  be  controverted,  without  proving 
the  covenant,  either  to  have  been  abolished,  which 
can  never  be  done,  while  the  decision  of  an  inspired 
aposile  maintains  its  authority;  or  to  have  under- 
gone, in  a  most  important  point,  such  an  altera- 
tion as  deprives  children  of  their  chartered  rights. 
But  where,  we  repeat  the  question  where  are  we 
taught,  that  the  covenant  has  been  thus  changed, 
aad  that  its  original  design  has  been  abandon«^d? 
No  instruction  to  this  effect  is  to  be  found  in  holy- 
scripture. 

ladeed,  to  apply  to  the  covenant  a  meaning  eo 
different  from  what  it  formerly  had,  is  to  resist 
the  evidence  of  plain  fauts.  For  if  it  no  longer 
require,  that  God  should  ever  again  show  a  regard 
to  Abraham's  *?arnal  seed,  why  are  they  preserved 
a  distinct  people?  Why  have  they  not  been  lost 
among  the  nations  with  whom  they  have  lived? 
From  their  preservation,  is  it  not  apparent,  that 
Che  covenant  has  still  a  favourable  aspect  toward 


Children's  Interest,  85 

ihem,  considered  as  the  seed  of  Abraham,  the 
friend  of  God?  and  that  the  intention  of  this  mar- 
vellous interposition  of  divine  providence,  is,  to 
make  it  the  more  conspicuous,  at  their  conver- 
sion, that  *<  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God,^'  as  the 
apostle  affirms  on  this  very  point,  "  are  without 
repentance;''^  and  that,  although  they  are  enemies 
concerning  the  gospel,  for  the  sake  of  us  Gen- 
tiles; yet,  **  as  touching  the  election,  they  are  be- 
loved for  the  Father's  sakef^"j  The  language  of 
their  famous  prophet  concurs,  with  divine  provi- 
dence, in  supporting  our  statement:  "  Thus  saith 
the  Lord,  Jls  the  new  wine  is  found  in  the  cluster, 
and  one  saith,  Destroy  it  not;  for  a  blessing  is  in 
it:  so  will  I  do  for  my  servants'  sakes,  that  I  may 
not  destroy  them  all.  And  I  will  bring  forth  a 
SEED  out  of  Jacob,  and  out  of  Judah  an  inheritor 
of  my  mountains:  and  mine  elect  shall  inherit  it, 
and  my  servants  shall  dwell  thereJ'^  From  an  in- 
spection of  the  chapter,  in  which  these  words  are 
recorded,  it  will  be  found  to  contain  a  prediction 
of  the  present  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  and  of 
their  future  restoration.  In  this  quotation,  then, 
we  have  assigned  the  reason  why  they  have  not 
been  utterly  destroyed:  it  is  because  an  elect  seed 
are  yet  to  descend  from  them,  who  shall,  in  due 
time,  be  collected  together  and  reestablished  in 
their  ancient  inheritance.  And  in  the  twenty- 
third  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  we  are  assured, 

*  Rom.  xi.  29.         f  Chap.  xi.  28.         i  Isaiah  Ixv.  8,  9. 

I 


86  LETTER  YI. 

that  the  children  of  tlie  Jewish  people,  when  re- 
covered from  their  dispersion,  shall  share  with 
their  parents  in  their  long  forfeited  privileges; 
«  For  they  are  the  seed  of  the  Uessed  of  the  Lord, 
and  their  offspring  ivith  themv' 

Now,  if  Jewish  children  shall,  at  the  restora- 
tion of  Israel,  be  brought  into  their  ancient  cove- 
nant-relation to  God,  it  will  follow  as  an  indubita- 
ble consequence,  that  the  children  of  Gentile-pa- 
rents must  share  in  the  same  privilege.  For  it 
cannot  be  supposed,  that,  after  the  breaking  down 
of  the  middle-wall  of  partition  between  Jew  and 
Gentile,  there  should  be  raised  between  them, 
when  united  into  one  church,  such  a  distinction 
as  would  exist,  if  children  of  the  latter  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  covenant,  while  those  of  the  for- 
mer were  admitted.  This  would  contradict  Paul's 
doctrine  with  respect  to  unity  of  privilege  under 
the  gospel:  '<  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek f  &c, 
for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be 
ChrisVs,  then  are  ye  t^lhraham^s  seed^  and  heirs  ac- 
cording to  the^^  full  import  of  the  ^*  promise,^'^ 
Hence  we  conclude.  That  Gentile-children  will 
sustain  a  covenant-relation  to  God,  in  that  happy 
period  when  Jew  and  Gentile  shall  be  united  into 
one  church;  and,  therefore,  that  they  have,  at 
present,  an  interest  in  the  covenant:  for  the  pro- 
mise cannot  hereafter  acquire  a  meaning  different 
from  what  it  has  constantly  borne  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation. 

*  Gal.  iii.  28,  29. 


Children's  Interest,  87 

Thus,  the  great  design  of  this  covenant,  it  ap- 
pears,  remains  unaltered.  Hence  it  follows,  that 
the  covenant-right  of  children  now,  stands  on  the 
same  ground  on  which  it  always  stood:  namely,  Je- 
hovah's  engagement  to  transmit  saving  blessings  in 
the  line  of  Ids  covenant-people's  seed,  A  nursery 
for  his  spiritual  church  is  as  necessary  at  present 
as  it  ever  was.  The  gospel,  owing  to  the  mixed 
state  of  mankind,  is  preached  to  all  indiscrimi- 
nately, that  the  elect  of  God  may  he  gathered: 
so  the  covenant,  in  its  external  form,  embraces  all 
the  offspring  of  God's  people,  that  the  spiritual 
blessings  of  it  may  be  secured,  and,  in  due  season, 
applied,  to  his  elect  seed  among  them. 

5.  Christian  children  enjoy^  in  an  improved 
state,  all  the  other  privileges  formerly  enjoyed  hy 
Jewish  children;  and  the  church  actually  descends 
AMOSTG  THEM,  from  oue  generation  to  another. 
Were  the  latter  placed  under  a  dispensation  of 
grace,  and  made  the  depositary  of  the  divine  ora- 
cles? The  former  live  under  the  new  and  better 
dispensation,  superior  in  light  and  power,-  and  pos- 
sess, in  addition  to  those  of  the  Old,  the  clearer 
oracles  of  the  New,  Testament,  the  glorious  gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ.  Were  Jewish  children  blessed 
with  the  instruction  of  inspired  prophets?  Chris- 
tian children  are  blessed  with  the  teaching  of 
ministers,  uninspired  indeed,  but  knowing  un- 
speakably more  of  the  mystery  of  salvation,  than 


88  LETTER   VI. 

prophets  the  most  celebrated.  '*  Among  them 
that  are  born  of  women,  there  hath  not,'^  said  our 
Lord,  "risen  a  greater  than  John  the  Baptist: 
notwithstanding,  he  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  is  greater  than  he."  Were  the  parents 
of  the  former  solemnly  charged  to  instruct  them 
carefully  and  diligently  in  religious  truth  and 
duty?^  The  parents  of  the  latter  are  equally 
bound  to  attend  to  their  Christian  education:  for 
they  are  solemnly  commanded  to  bring  them  up 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.f  Did 
Jehovah  bless  the  means  of  grace,  under  the  old 
dispensation,  to  the  offspring  of  his  covenant-peo- 
ple? He  blesses  the  means  of  grace  to  them,  un- 
der the  new  dispensation,  more  abundantly  and 
extensively. 

Thus,  it  appears,  from  this  parallel,  that  Chris- 
tian children  enjoy,  in  an  improved  state,  all  the 
privileges  enjoyed  by  Jewish  children.  Yet  the 
former  have,  contend  some,  been  deprived  of  that 
ennobling  privilege,  a  covenant-relation  to  God, 
from  which  resulted,  and  by  which  were  secured 
to  the  latter,  all  their  other  blessings!  How  incre- 
dible this  opinion!  The  foundation  is  subverted, 
but  the  building  stands! 

Another  fact  worthy  of  your  attentive  consi- 
deration, is,  the  PERPETUATION  of  the  church 
among  Christian  children,  from  generation  to  ge- 
neration.    None  acquainted  with  the  history  of 

*  Deut.  -vi.  6.  f  Ephes.  vi.  4. 


Children's  Interest*  89 

tlie  church  universal,  or  of  particular  churches, 
can  deny  this  fact.  When  God  is  ahout  to  ex- 
tend the  limits  of  his  Zion,  he  necessarily  steps 
beyond  the  habitations  of  his  people,  and  pours 
out  his  Spirit  on  heathen  families.  But  it  is  an  in- 
controvertible fact,  that  the  church  has  uniformly 
descended  among  the  posterity  of  Christians^  and 
that  multitudes  of  them,  in  successive  generations, 
have  been  called  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  made 
partakers  of  eternal  life,  and  all  intermediate 
blessings  of  the  covenant. 

In  particular  churches,  who  constitute  the 
mass  of  true  believers? — the  children  of  strangers, 
or  the  children  of  God's  people?  We  do,  indeed^ 
and  blessed  be  God  for  it,  see  instances  of  sove- 
reign grace  displayed  in  converting  persons  de- 
scended from  ungodly  and  unbelieving  parents. 
But,  may  Ave  not  assert  it  as  a  fact  not  to  be  dis» 
proved,  that  the  mass  of  true  believers  are  ordi» 
narily  the  children  of  God's  covenant-people? 

Grace,  it  is  true,  descends  not  Avith  the  blood, 
from  father  to  son,  as  an  inheritance:  yet  it  does 
descend  from  one  generation  of  Christians  to  ano- 
ther; for  the  prayers  and  instructions  of  the  ge- 
neration preceding,  like  the  seed  from  which 
springs  the  harvest,  is  sure  to  be  followed  by  fruit 
in  the  generation  succeeding.  Indeed,  were  the 
fact  otherwise,  it  would  militate  against  the  use 
of  means.  Means,  we  admit,  are  not  always  suc- 
cessful with  respect 'to  reiigion|  nor  are  they  in 
i2 


90  LETTER   VI. 

natural  things:  in  both  cases  they  often  prove  in- 
effectual; and  this,  no  doubt,  happens  to  teach  us 
our  dependence  for  success  on  the  divine  blessing. 
Hence,  among  the  most  profligate,  are  sometimes 
found  children  born  of  the  most  pious  parents. 
But,  although  there  is  no  necessary  connexion 
between  the  use  of  means  and  the  communication 
of  grace  to  our  children,  yet  there  is  unquestion- 
ably established  between  them  a  connexion  suffi- 
cient to  show  their  importance,  and  encourage 
parental  diligence;  but  not  enough  to  weaken  our 
sense  of  dependence  on  God's  blessing  for  success. 
*•  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go;  and 
when  he  is  old  he  will  not  depart  from  it."*  ^<  But 
the  mercy  of  the  Lord  is  from  everlasting  to  ever- 
lasting upon  them  that  fear  him,  and  his  right- 
eousness unto  chiUlren's  children;  to  such  as  keep 
his  covenani,  and  to  those  that  remember  his 
commandments  to  do  them.^f  Means,  in  all  other 
matters,  are  generally  successful;  and  it  would  be 
strange  if,  in  the  more  important  concerns  of  re- 
ligion, they  should  not  be  attended  with  success. 
God  certainly  does  bestow  his  blessing  on  the 
use  of  appointed  means,  parental  instruction,  dis- 
cipline, and  example,  and  render  them  effectual 
to  the  conversion  of  children:  and  this  furnishes 
conclusive  proof,  that  religion  is  still  transmitted, 
from  father  to  son,  in  the  successive  generations 
of  his  professing  people. 

*  Prov.  xxn.  6.  Psal.  ciii.  17,  18. 


Children's  Interest*  91 

Here  are  two  remarkable  and  incontesta- 
ble FACTS,  The  children  of  believers  enjoy,  in 
an  improved  condition,  all  the  privileges  formerly 
enjoyed  by  Jewish  children;  and  the  promised 
blessings  of  God's  covenant  come  uniformly  upon 
them,  from  generation  to  generation.  What  con- 
clusion shall  we  draw  from  these  facts?  How  shall 
we  account  for  this  steady  state  of  things,  through 
a  long  course  of  ages?  It  results,  no  doubt,  from 
the  will  of  divine  providence:  and  so  did  that  simi- 
lar state  of  things  which  uniformly  prevailed  un- 
der the  ancient  economy.  Then,  however,  it  was 
produced  by  the  superintending  care  of  Jehovah, 
in  fulfilment  of  his  covenant-engagements  with 
his  church:  and  can  it  be  admitted  that,  under  the 
present  dispensation,  this  remarkable  state  of 
things  has  no  connexion  with  that  same  unaltered 
covenant?  that  the  children  of  his  people  continue 
to  receive  its  blessings,  although  they  have  been 
deprived  of  the  promise  by  which  these  blessings 
were  formerly  entailed  on  them?  What  agreement 
would  there  be,  between  such  inferences  and  the 
premises  from  which  they  must  be  drawn?  You 
might  as  well  attempt  to  reconcile  light  and  dark- 
ness. 

If  the  promise  be  recalled;  if  children  be  cast 
out  of  God's  covenant;  Avhy  do  we  not  see  a  cor- 
responding change  in  his  providence?  Can  another 
occurrence  like  this  be  shown  in  the  history  of  his 
church;  in  which  expulsion  from  a  covenant-rela- 


03  LETTER   YI. 

tion  to  him,  was  attended  by  no  forfeiture  of  pri- 
vileges connected  with  tliis  relation?  The  Jews 
Lave  been  ejected  from  the  covenant  of  their  fa- 
thers: What  has  followed?  God  frowns  upon 
them,  and  upon  their  children.  They  have  the 
scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament;  but  it  is  to  them 
A  sealed  book.  They  read  it  with  the  veil  upon 
their  hearts.  Those  very  writings  of  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  which  were  formerly  made,  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  ^«a  savour  of  life  unto  life,"  are 
now,  ^*  a  savour  of  death  unto  death."  The  Spi- 
rit of  the  Lord  has  departed  from  them.  Thus, 
the  providence  and  the  word  of  God  speak  the 
same  language;  they  both  proclaim  the  same  awful 
sentence:  "  Fe  are  not  mypeople,''  God  hath  given 
to  Judah  a  bill  of  divorcement.  In  like  manner 
he  treated  Israel.  By  their  idolatries,  the  Ten 
Tribes  broke  covenant  with  him:  and  He,  after 
bearing,  with  much  long  suffering  patience,  their 
unfaithfulness,  cast  them  entirely  off;  deprived 
them  of  the  instructions  of  his  prophets,  and  sent 
them  far  away  from  the  land  of  their  fathers  into 
strange  countries,  where  they  have  been  lost  for 
ages.  When  Esau,  for  contempt  of  his  birth- 
right, was  deprived  of  it,  and  the  covenant  was 
established  in  the  family  of  Jacob,  God,  by  his 
providence,  marked  the  difference  in  the  religious 
condition  of  these  two  brothers;  displaying  the 
truth,  long  before  the  mouth  of  his  prophet  ut- 
tered it:  <f  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I 


Children* s  Interest.  93 

hated,- '^  In  a  similar  way,  God  dealt  with  Abra- 
ham's eldest  son,  after  he  was  excluded  from  the 
covenant.  Ishmael  and  his  children  were  deprived 
of  those  external  religious  privileges,  and  of  those 
gracious  visitations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  the 
covenant  secured  to  Isaac,  and  to  his  seed,  in  the 
line  of  Jacob. 

Thus,  from  the  history  of  God's  dealings  with 
his  church,  it  appears  that,  whenever  any  branch 
of  his  people  were  cast  out  of  his  covenant,  he 
ahvays  marked  the  forfeiture  which  they  had  in- 
curred, by  froAvning  upon  them  in  his  providence — . 
by  depriving  them  of  their  religious  advantages — 
and  by  withholding  the  influence  of  his  blessed 
Spirit.  Is  it  possible,  then,  that  the  children  of 
his  people,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  with 
whom  he  deals  in  a  way  of  mercy  directhj  the  op- 
posite, should  have  been  shut  out  of  his  covenant? 
His  providence  smiles  upon  them;  his  grace  de- 
scends upon  them.  They  enjoy  all  the  external 
privileges  of  his  covenant;  and  the  blessings  of 
Abraham,  saving  covenant-blessings  come  upon 
them.  How  plainly  both  the  providence  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  contradict  the  sentiment,  that  our 
children  are  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Is- 
rael, and  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise! 

These  two  facts,  stated  and  illustrated,  autho- 
rize us  to  conclude,  from  the  undeviating  proce- 
dure of  divine  providence  in  regard  to  the  church, 

*  Rom.  ix.  IS.      Mai.  i.  I 


9*  LETTER  VI. 

That  children  have  still  an  interest  in  Jehovah's 
unrevoked  covenant;  and  that  the  God  of  Ahra- 
ham  continues  to  fulfil  his  ancient  promise,  by  be- 
stowing on  the  seed  of  his  people  covenant-bless- 
ings, life  and  salvation,*  and  by  raising  up  children 
in  place  of  their  fathers,  as  a  generation  to  serve 
him,  and  maintain  his  cause  in  the  world. 

On  grounds  so  firm,  my  brethren,  rests  the 
right  of  children.  The  settled  meaning  of  the  term 
«eed;--the  admission  of  children  born  of  Gentiles 
proselyted  to  the  Jewish  religion,  to  an  interest  in 
the  covenant,  confirmed  to  them  by  an  application 
of  its  seal;-the  importance  of  thisprivilege;-and  the 
great  design  of  the  covenant,*-have  each  furnished 
us  with  a  solid  argument  in  favour  of  the  right  of 
our  offspring.  Combined,  they  present  a  body  of 
evidence  which  cannot  be  resisted;  especially  when 
contemplated  in  connexion  with  the  facts,  that 
Christian  children  enjoy,  in  an  improved  state, 
all  the  other  privileges  which  Jewish  children 
enjoyed,  and  that  the  great  covenant-promise  is 
uniformly  fulfilled  to  them,  from  generation  to 
generation. 

Against  the  covenant-interest  of  children,  it  is 
objected.  That  the  present  dispensation  is  too  spi- 
ritual to  admit  them  to  that  near  relation  to  God 
which  they  formerly  sustained.  The  objection  is 
plausible.  But,  when  investigated,  it  will  be  found, 
that  its  whole  force  depends  on  begging  the  ques- 
tion in  dispute.  For  what  is  the  question?  It  is 
this:   Have  children  a  covenant-relation  to  God 


Children's  Interest.  95 

under  the  present  dispensation?  Now,  to  affirm 
the  present  dispensation  to  be  too  spiritual  to  ad- 
mit them  to  such  a  relation,  amounts  indeed  to  a 
denial  of  their  ancient  right,  but  it  presents  no 
'proof.  It  is  bare  assertion;  a  simple  begging  of 
the  question.  To  establish  the  conclusion,  which 
the  affirmation  pretends  lo  prove,  it  ought  to  be 
evinced,  by  solid  arguments,  either  that  the  cove- 
nant has  been  vacated,  or  that  the  right  of  chil- 
dren under  it  has  been  revoked.  But,  without 
any  proof  of  tbis  kind,  to  assume  ft  as  a  principle, 
that  the  present  dispensation  is  too  spiritual  to 
allow  them  to  hold  their  ancient  chartered  right, 
is  illogical  in  the  highest  degree.  It  is  inverting 
the  order  in  the  argument.  It  is  substituting  the 
conclusion  for  the  premises,  and  the  premises  for 
the  conclusion:  because  it  ought,  first,  to  be  pro- 
ved, that  the  covenant-right  of  children  has  been 
taken  away  from  them,  by  that  high  authority 
from  which  it  was  derived;  and,  then,  from  this 
-  established  fact,  it  might  be  fairly  inferred,  that 
the  present  dispensation  is  inconsistent  with  the 
continued  enjoyment  of  their  ancient  right. 

This  fact,  however,  can  never  be  established. 
The  right  of  children  rests,  as  we  have  evinced, 
on  a  sure  and  solid  basis;  unaffected  by  the  change 
which  has  taken  place  in  the  economy  of  God's 
government  over  his  church.  It  is  secured  to 
them  by  that  irrevocable  covenant,  in  which  it 
was  originally  granted  by  supreme  authority. 


^6  LETTER  VI. 

The  principle,  thus  gratuitously  assumed,  on 
which  this  objection  depends,  is  pushed  by  others 
to  a  greater  length.  One  sect  of  Christians  af- 
firm, that  the  present  dispensation  is  so  spiritual, 
as  to  forbid  the  use  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper,  and  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  ministry 
of  an  order  of  men  specially  set  apart  to  preach 
the  gospel:  and  they  have  as  good  ground  for  their 
assertion,  as  those  who  affirm  the  covenant-right 
of  infants  to  be  incompatible  with  the  spirituality 
of  the  Christian  dispensation.  Both,  however, 
assume,  as  a  settled  maxim,  what  ought  first  to 
be  proved:  and,  therefore,  the  conclusions  drawn 
from  it  are  mere  assumptions,  and  entirely  falla- 
cious. Were  this  mode  of  reasoning  allowed, 
what  ordinance  could  withstand  its  attacks?  Per- 
mit me  thus  to  assume  my  principle,  and  I  can,  with 
a  dash  of  my  pen,  overturn  the  whole  external 
order  of  the  church.  I  can  prove  improper,  not 
only  the  use  of  sacraments,  but  also  public  wor- 
ship; nay,  an  open  profession  of  religion  to  be 
unchristian:  merely  by  affirming,  that  all  these 
things  are  inconsistent  with  the  spirituality  of  the 
present  dispensation. 

The  fallacy  of  the  objection  is  apparent.  It 
may,  however,  he  useful  here  to  detain  you,  by 
making  some  remarks  toward  elucidating  the  dif- 
ference, with  respect  to  spirituality,  in  the  two 
economies.  That  the  Jewish  is  surpassed  by  the 
Christian  dispensation,  in  spirituality,  is  an  un- 


Children's  Interest.  97 

questionable  fact:  the  former  being  suited,  as  an  in- 
spired writer  teaches,  to  the  church  in  a  state  of 
minority,  and  the  latter  adapted  to  her  condition 
when  arrived  at  mature  age.*  The  ideas,  however, 
entertained  by  some  divines  with  respect  to  the  Jew- 
ish church,  are  entirely  unwarrantable,  and  degra- 
ding to  her  character  in  the  highest  degree.  Au- 
thors of  respectable  name  have  represented  her  as 
little  more  than  a  political  society,  and  contended 
that  God  required  of  her  members  only  external 
obedience:  a  sentiment  directly  opposed  to  the  grand 
design  of  the  covenant  under  which  she  existed,  and 
contradictory  to  express  precepts  and  texts  of  sa- 
cred scripture.  Have  we  not  seen,  that  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  by  which  the  Jewish  church  Avas 
constituted,  contemplated,  as  its  grand  design,  the 
calling  of  God's  elect  seed  to  the  enjoyment  of  him- 
self, and  the  preparing  of  them  for  a  state  of  hea- 
venly glory?  Does  not  our  Lord  make  the  sum  of 
that  law,  which  was  given  to  his  church,  to  consist 
in  love  to  God  and  love  to  man^  Were  not  God's 
ancient  people  required  to  rend  their  hearts,  and 
not  their  garments;  to  make  them  new  hearts,  and 
new  spirits^ j  Did  David  imagine  he  had  done  his 
duty,  merely  by  yielding  an  external  obedience  to 
divine  precepts?  Far  from  it.  "Behold,''  he  ex- 
claims, <«  thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts: 
and  in  the  hidden  part  thou  shalt  make  me  to  know 
wisdom.    For  thou  desirest  not  sacrifice;  else  would 

*  Gal.  iv.  1— r.  t  Joel  ii.  15.  Ezek.  xviii.  31. 

K 


99  LETTER  VI. 

I  give  it:  thou  deliglitest  not  in  burnt  offering.  The 
sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit:  a  broken  and 
a  contrite  heart,  O  God,  tbou  wilt  not  despise."* 
How  can  a  notion  so  degrading  be  reconciled  with 
the  majesty,  the  purity,  and  the  omniscience  of  the 
great  Head  of  the  church?  Was  not  the  Son  of  God 
as  glorious  in  majesty,  as  spotless  in  purity,  as  in- 
finite in  knowledge,  when  he  governed  his  church 
by  the  former  economy,  as  since  he  commenced  his 
new  and  better  dispensation?   How  was  it  possible, 
for  Him  who  looketh  on  the  heart,   and  trieth  the 
reins  of  the  children  of  men,  even  to  issue  laws  re- 
quiring nothing  more  than  bare  external  obedience, 
and  institute  a  church  merely  for  political   ends! 
That  the  Son  of  God  was  king  of  Israel,  and  that 
he  gave  them,  as  a  nation,  a  code  of  civil  and  poli- 
tical laws,  is  readily  admitted.     But,  from  this  fact, 
to  .nfer  the  church,  under  the  Jewish  economy,  to 
have  been  a  mere  political  society,  is  as  absui'd,  as 
it  would  be  to  infer  that  the    church  under   the 
Christian  dispensation  is  of  the  same  nature,  be- 
cause Jesus  Christ  is  now  styled  **  King  of  kings," 
and  king  in  Zion.     The  truth  is,  the  Jewisli  people 
were  both  a  nation  and  a  church:  societies  inii- 
mately  blended,  but  entirely  distinct,  in  their  laws 
and  ends;  just  as  the  corporate  and  church-states 
of  any  religious  society,  are  distinct,  although  closely 
united:  and  as  the  constitution  of  the  former  state 
is  subservient  to  the  spiritual  purposes  and  ends  of 

*  Psal.  li.  6,  16,  17. 


Cliildren's  Interest.  99 

the  latter;  so  the  political  state  of  the  Jewish  na- 
tion was  intended  to  be  subservient  to  the  great 
ends  of  tlie  church.  Our  Lord  assumed  the  cha- 
racter of  king  to  accomplish,  the  more  eflTectually, 
liis  views  as  Head  of  his  church.  The  Sinai-consti- 
tution being  abolished,  the  church  exists  now  as  she 
did  during  the  whole  period  intervening  between  the 
date  of  it  and  that  of  Abraham's  covenant,  in  a  sepa* 
i^te  capacitij:  and  she  exists  under  the  identical  co- 
venant, by  which  she  was  constituted  and  organized 
in  the  patriarcli's  family.  This  is  not,  and  never 
was,  as  some  intimate,  an  ecclesiastieo-political  con- 
stitution,* but  a  divine  co»:stitution  adapted  to  the 
nature  of  God's  church;  that  holy  society  wliich  he 
has  separated  from  the  world,  for  the  maintenance 
of  his  ivorship,  the  promolion  of  his  glory,  and  the 
salvation  of  his  elect. 

Again:  The  difference  of  the  two  dispensations, 
in  regard  to  spirituality,  does  not  consist  in  an  en- 
tire abolition  of  external  form  and  ordinances  under 
the  present.  Such  there  must  be  while  man  re- 
mains what  he  is:  and  certainly  baptism,  the  Lord's 
supper,  and  public  worship,  which  belong  to  the 
Christian  dispensation,  are  external  ordinances. 

Nor  does  the  difference  consist  in  an  entire  ex- 
elusion  of  unsanctified  members  from  the  Christian 
church.  A  Judas,  called  a  devil,  was  a  member  of 
our  Saviour's  little  family:  Simon  Magus,  a  man 
*'yet  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of 

*  Booth 


100  LETTER  VI. 

iniquity,"  was  baptized  by  Philip  the  evangelist:*  1 
and  an  incestuous  person  was  a  member  of  the  Co- 
rinthian church,  founded  by  Paul.f  In  every  age, 
there  have  always  been,  even  in  the  purest  churches 
of  any  size,  hypocrites  and  other  unworthy  charac- 
ters. Perfect  purity  cannot  possibly  be  obtained, 
while  the  door  of  admission  is  intrusted  to  the  hands 
of  fallible  mortals,  who  look,  not  on  the  heart,  but 
on  the  outward  appearance.  Our  Lord,  in  his  pa- 
rable of  the  tares  growing  with  the  wheat,  plainly 
intimates  that  a  corrupt  mixture  will  ever  be  found 
in  his  church;  guards  his  servants  against  such  at- 
tempts to  purify  her,  as  might  endanger  the  privi- 
leges of  real  believers;  and  assures  us,  that  a  per- 
fect separation  between  the  righteous  and  the  wick- 
ed will  not  take  place,  till  the  end  of  the  world; 
<*  when  he  will  send  forth  his  angels  to  gather  out 
of  his  kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and  them  that 
do  iniquity.^ij: 

In  what,  then,  consists  the  superior  spirituality 
of  the  Christian  dispensation?  Simply  in  the  aboli- 
tion of  that  burdensome  ritual,  instituted  by  the 
Sinai-covenant,  and  adapted  to  the  minor-state  of 
the  church;  and  in  the  introduction  of  an  external 
form  and  ritual  suited  to  a  state  in  which  the  church 
has  arrived  at  mature  age,  and  is  permitted  to  en- 
joy the  adoption  of  sons.  Her  members  are  no  lon- 
ger obliged  to  repair  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem; 
but  enjoy  the  liberty  of  erecting,  in  any  place  that 

*  Acts  viii.  13,  23.     f  1  Cor,  v.  1.     *  Mat.  xxiv.  13—30,  36—43. 


CliildreiCs  Interest,  101 

may  suit  their  convenience,  houses  of  worship.     No 
longer  restricted  to  one  altar  on  which  to  offer  their 
sacrifices,  ihey  may  every  where  lift  up  Jioly  hands, 
and  present,  with  acceptance,   their  sacrifices  of 
prayer,  thanksgiving,  and  praise.     The  severe  au- 
thority of  Moses,  who  suhjected  the  church  to  nu- 
merous rites,  costly  sacrifices,  oppressive  ceremo- 
nies, *•  a  yoke  w  hich"  she  was  **  unahle  to  hear;" 
has  given  place  to  the  mild  reign  of  Jesus  Christ, 
who  governs  lier  hy  ordinances  few  in  number,  sim- 
ple in  meaning,  and  easy  to  be  understood.     The 
splendid  service  of  the  temple  has  been  succeeded 
by  the  simplicity  of  a  Christian  assembly;  the  mi- 
nistry of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  adorned  with  gems 
and  costly  robes,  by  the  ministry  of  apostles  and 
their  successors,  officiating  in  plain  attire;  the  bon- 
dage of  *•  beggarly  elements,"   by  the  freedom  of 
gospel  worship;  the  servile  distance  at  which  the 
church  stood  from  her  glorious  Head,  by  that  near 
approach  which  she  makes,  in  virtue  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus;  coming  not  once  in  a  year,  but  daily;  not 
with  dread}  but  with  boldness  into  the  holiest,  even 
to  the  mercy-seat  of  her  God.   The  gospel  preached 
in  types  and  ceremonies,  has  been  succeeded  by  the 
gospel  preached  plainly  and  fully;  **  the  ministra- 
tion  of  condemnation,"  by  "  the   ministration   of 
righteousness;"  the  '<  spirit  of  bondage,"  by  *<tbe 
spirit  of  adoption."     In  a  Avord,  the  obscurity,  re- 
straints, and  servile  fear  of  the  Mosaic,  have  given 
k2 


102  lETTER  VI. 

place  to  the  light  and  freedom,  love  and  joy,  of  tlie 
Christian  dispensation. 

In  such  respects,  the  present  economy  surpasses 
the  former,  in  spirituality.  But  the  exclusion  of 
children  from  church-membership,  forms  no  part 
of  its  superiority.  The  constitution  of  the  church 
is  such,  at  present,  that  it  does  not  prevent  the  ad- 
mission of  hypocrites,  and  other  vile  characters, 
making  a  credible  profession  of  religion;  why,  then, 
should  it  be  thought  unbecoming  the  purity  and 
majesty  of  God,  to  permit  children  to  retain  that 
external  relation  to  himself,  which  they  derived 
from  his  express  appointment,  and  enjoyed,  without 
interruption,  for  so  long  a  period?  How  unreasona- 
ble to  suppose,  that  an  alteration  in  religious  cere- 
monies should  cut  off  from  the  church  a  whole  class 
of  members!  destroy  a  right  secured  by  a  perpetual 
covenant;  a  covenant  which  originally  contemplated 
the  admission  of  Gentiles,  as  well  as  the  natural 
descendants  of  Abraham;  a  covenant  affected,  nei- 
ther by  the  formation,  nor  by  the  abolition,  of  the 
Sinai-covenant,  with  all  its  appendent  laws  and  ce- 
remonies! 


LETTER  VII. 

Duties  of  the  covenant 

Christian  Brethren, 

From  the  nature  of  this  covenant,  containing, 
as  evinced,  blessings  so  invaluable,  and  formed  for 
purposes  so  important,^  it  is  obvious,  that  very  se- 
rious duties  muBt  be  imposed  on  every  covenantee. 
Permit  me  to  present  you  with  a  brief  view  of  them. 

The  bestowment  of  any  favour  by  the  Most 
High,  lays  the  recipient  under  a  corresponding  obli- 
gation to  gratitude,  praise,  and  obedience.  Have 
we  derived  our  existence  from  God?  and  do  we  de- 
pend on  him  for  life,  and  breath,  and  all  things? 
We  are  bound  to  worship  him  as  our  Creator,  Pre- 
server, and  Benefactor;  and  to  express  our  grati- 
tude, by  employing,  in  his  service  and  to  his  glory, 
ail  the  powers  with  which  he  has  endowed  our  na- 
ture. Had  this  covenant,  then,  been  granted  in  an 
absolute  form,  and  insured  to  us  promised  blessings, 
without  requiring  the  performance  of  any  duty  on 
our  part  in  order  to  a  participation  in  them;  it  would 
have  laid  us  under  obligations  to  gratitude  and 
praise.     Such  is  the  covenant  made  with  Noah  and 

*  Letter  U  and  III. 


104  LETTER  VII. 

all  flesh.  It  engages  that  the  earth  shall  never  be 
again  destroyed  by  a  deluge,  and  that  seed-time  and 
harvest,  day  and  night,  summer  and  winter,  shall 
alternately  succeed  each  other,  till  the  expiration 
of  time:  and  the  benefits  of  it  are  secured  by  an 
absolute  promise,  the  fulfilment  of  which  depends 
not  at  all  on  the  performance  of  any  duty  by  man- 
kind. But  although,  in  this  view,  no  duty  is  re- 
quired by  it,  yet  the  bestowment  of  so  great  fa- 
vours, certainly  imposes  on  us  the  duties  of  grati- 
tude and  praise. 

The  Abrahamic  covenant  is  of  a  different  kind. 
It  requires  from  every  covenantee  particular  duties, 
repentance ffaithf  and  universal  holiness. 

Enjoyment  of  its  temporal  or  external  blessings, 
does  not  depend  on  the  performance  of  these  duties 
by  every  individual:  for  thousands  of  Abraham's 
descendants  enjoyed  them,  who  lived  and  died  im- 
penitent and  unbelieving.  A  full  enjoyment  of  them, 
however,  did  depend  on  the  prevalence  of  a  certain 
measure  of  piety  in  the  Israelitish  nation.  That 
generation  which  came  out  of  Egypt  was,  on  ac- 
count of  their  unbelief,  excluded  from  the  land  of 
promise:  and  when  idolatry  and  wickedness  pre- 
vailed among  the  Jewish  people,  after  their  settle- 
ment in  Canaan,  they  were  sent  into  captivity  to 
Babylon;  and,  many  times  previous  to  that  event, 
were  they  sorely  chastised  for  their  sins,  by  the  in- 
cursions of  neighbouring  nations.  A  similar  state 
of  things  has  existed  since  the  establishment  of  the 


Duties  of  the  Covenant.  105 

Christian  dispensation.  Tliousands  have,  without 
repentance  and  faitli,  enjoyed  external  covenant- 
blessings,  tlie  gospel,  and  the  means  of  grace:  but, 
when  impiety  has  prevailed  much  in  churches,  God 
has  sometimes  destroyed  them,  and  removed  their 
candlestick  out  of  its  place.  The  seven  churches 
of  Asia  furnish  mournful  illustrations  of  this  trutli. 
Participation,  however,  in  the  spiritual  benefits 
of  this  covenant,  does  depend  on  the  exercise  of  re- 
pentance and  faith.  They  are  exhibited  and  offered 
to  every  covenantee;  yet  none  come  to  the  actual 
enjoyment  of  them,  but  (hose  who  repent  and  be- 
lieve. Let  me  not  be  misunderstood  to  mean,  that 
the  performance  of  these  duties  is,  strictly  speak- 
ing, the  condition  of  receiving  covenant-blessings; 
for,  in  this  respect,  they  depend  on  the  glorious 
Mediator  of  the  covenant,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
whose  merits  alone  are  the  procuring  cause  of  them. 
Abraham  was  not  justified  by  works,  but  by  faith:^ 
and  if  he,  the  father  of  the  faithful,  the  head  of 
the  covenant,  was  justified,  not  by  works,  but  by 
that  faith  which  appropriates  the  righteousness  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  tlien,  surely,  all  believers, 
his  spiritual  seed,  must  be  justified  in  the  same  free 
and  gracious  manner.  "  If  there  had  been  a  law 
given  which  could  have  given  life,  verily  righteous- 
ness should  have  been  by  the  law.  But  the  scrip- 
ture hath  concluded  all  under  sin,  that  the  promise 
by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  might  be  given  to  all  them 

*  Rom.  iv.  1^3. 


106  LETTER   VII. 

that  believe."*  "Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it 
might  be  by  grace;  to  the  end  the  promise  might 
be  sure  to  all  the  seed;  not  to  that  only  >vhich  is  of 
the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  ail."f 

But  the  fact,  that  justification,  and  other  spiri- 
tual blessings  of  the  covenant,  are  conferred  by  a 
gracious  donation,  excluding  all  merit;  does  not 
militate  against  the  truth,  that  these  benefits  are 
bestowed  only  on  those  who  repent  and  believe. 
The  necessity  of  faith  and  repentance,  imposed  on 
every  covenantee,  is  apparent  from  the  very  nature 
ef  the  covenant.  Consider  what  is  its  great  pro- 
mise. By  it  Jehovah  engages  to  be  a  God  to  us. 
Now,  does  He  condescend  to  make  so  merciful  an 
offer?  Is  he  ready  to  become  reconciled  to  us,  guilty 
rebels,  through  Jesus  Christ;  blotting  out  all  our 
sins,  and  giving  us  the  adoption  of  children?  Surely 
the  very  offer  binds  us  to  deep  humiliation  and  un- 
feigned penitence?  Should  we  not  repent,  heartily 
repent,  of  those  offences  which  we  have  committed 
against  a  God  so  holy,  and  yet  so  merciful?  This  is 
one  of  the  first  steps  to  be  taken  in  that  upright 
walk  or  life,  which  the  covenant  expressly  re- 
quires.j:  For  a  sinner,  a  rebel,  can  never  walk 
uprightly  before  God,  until  he  humble  himself  at 
his  feet,  and  repent  of  the  insults  which  he  has,  in 
the  course  of  his  rebellion,  dared  to  offer  to  infinite 
Majesty. 

*  Gal.  iii.  21,  22.  f  Rom.  iv.  16.  ^  Gen.  xvii.  1. 


Duties  of  the  Covenant,  107 

Equally  plain  is  it,  ihsii  faith  is  demanded  of 
every  covenantee.  Without  faith,  there  can  be  no 
reconciliation  between  God  and  the  sinner,  nor  true, 
evangelical  re|ientance;  and,  consequently,  no  ac- 
ceptable walking  before  God;  because  it  must  com- 
mence with  the  healing  of  that  unhappy  breach  of 
friendship,  which  sin  has  made  between  him  and 
the  sinner.  Besides,  faith  is  necessary  to  enable 
us  to  accept  the  great  blessing  of  this  covenant,  I 
mean  the  righteousness  of  faith.  This  righteous- 
ness, even  the  righteousness  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  is  exhibited  and  offered  to  every  covenantee; 
but  it  can  be  appropriated  only  by  a  true  and  living 
faith.  See  Rom.  x.  5 — 10. 

Further:  The  covenant  imposes  the  great  duty 
of  universal  holiness.  Had  we  no  other  proof  of 
this,  it  miglit  be  inierred  from  the  obligations  with 
which  it  binds  us  to  repentance  and  faith,  the  seeds 
of  a  new  and  holy  life.  But  we  have  positive  proof; 
for  it  is  expressly  required.  The  covenant  is  intro- 
duced in  these  comprehensive  words:  **  Walk  thou 

BEFORE   ME,    AND  BE  THOU  PERFECT,"*    Or,    as  the 

original  miglit  be  translated,  *•  Be  thou  uprigut." 
This  injunction  is  as  broad,  as  the  apostolic  exhorta- 
tion grounded  on  the  great  promises  of  the  gospel: 
Having,  therefore,  these  promises ,  let  us  cleanse  our- 
selves  from  all  fiUhiiiess  of  the  flesh  and  of  the 
spirit,  pevfccting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
And  in  fact,  these  pi^oniises  belong  to  the  Abra- 

*  Gen.  Kvii.  1. 


lOS  LETTER   VII. 

hami(^  covenant.  Compare  2  Cor.  vi.  16,  vii.  1,  with 
Levit.  xxvi.  9 — 12. 

Moreover:  The  covenant,  it  is  manifest,  impo- 
ses a  particular  duty  on  parents  toward  their  chil- 
dren. That  they  should  endeavour  to  train  them 
up  for  God,  and  lead  them  to  the  exercise  of  that 
repentance  and  faith  which  are  necessary  to  the  en- 
joyment of  spiritual  blessins^s,  is  unquestionably  a 
solemn  and  an  indispensable  covenant-duty.  Were 
an  opulent  person  to  adopt  a  poor  man's  child,  and 
engage  to  make  him,  if  his  conduct  should  be  cor- 
rect, heir  to  his  estate;  would  it  not  be  a  duty  in- 
cumbent on  the  child's  parent,  consenting  to  his 
adoption,  to  endeavour  to  give  him,  while  remain- 
ing under  his  care,  such  instruction,  and  subject 
him  to  such  discipline,  as  might  help  to  form  his 
character,  and  prepare  him  for  the  inheritance  in 
prospect?  Apply  this  to  the  case  before  us.  God 
has  adopted  our  children;  he  has  brought  them  into 
a  special  relation  to  himself,  and  made  them  mem- 
bers of  his  visible  church;  he  exhibits  to  them  his 
gracious  promises,  and  engages  to  make  every  one 
of  them  that  shall  believe,  an  heir  to  a  heavenly 
inheritance;  and,  for  a  time,  he  commits  them  to 
our  care.  Can  we  misunderstand  his  meaning?  Does 
he  not  plainly  signify  it  to  be  his  will,  that  w^e 
should  bring  up  our  children  for  him,  and  endea- 
vour by  instruction,  discipline,  and  example,  to  se- 
cure to  them  the  enjoyment  of  every  covenant-bless- 
ing? Abraham  felt  his  obligations  in  reference  to 


Duties  of  the  Covenant,  109 

liis  children:  and  his  zeal  to  perform  his  duty,  and 
realize  to  them  covenant-promises,  received  honour- 
able notice  from  the  Almighty:  "  I  know  him,  that 
he  will  command  his  children  and  his  household  af- 
ter him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord, 
to  do  justice  and  judgment;  that  the  Lord  may  bring 
upon  Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him."^ 
From  this  passage  it  is  evident,  that  God  suspends, 
in  some  degree,  the  fulfilment  of  his  promises,  on 
parental  diligence.  The  patriarch  was  sensible, 
that  the  promises  or  covenant  of  God  imposed  on 
him  the  great  duty  of  educating  his  children  in  re- 
ligious knowledge;  and  that  the  appointed  way  for 
securing  to  himself  and  to  them  the  enjoyment  of 
promised  blessings,  was  diligently  to  perform  this 
great  duty.  If  Christian  parents  wish  to  see  the 
blessing  of  Abraham  descending  on  their  children, 
let  them  imitate  him,  by  training  them  up  in  reli- 
gious knowledge  and  practice. 

From  the  view,  my  brethren,  which  has  been 
presented,  in  these  letters,  of  Abraham's  cove- 
nant, I  infer.  That  it  is  in  substance  the  same 
as  the  covenant  of  grace.  To  evince  this  truth,  let 
us  run  a  parallel  between  the  two  covenants.  Did 
the  latter  originate  in  infinite  wisdom?  The  former 
had  the  same  origin:  being  devised,  exhibited,  and 
offered  to  mankind  by  Jehovah.  Does  the  covenant 
of  grace  contain  spiritual  blessings,  and  particu- 
larly engage,  that  the  Almighty  will  be  a  God  to 

*  Gen.  xviii.  10. 
I.- 


110  LETTER  VII. 

every  believer?  The  Abrahamic  covenant  contains 
spiritual  blessings,  and  is  distinguished  by  the  same 
glorious  promise.     Does  the  former  exhibit  to  sin- 
ners the  righteousness  of  faith,  as  the  only  way  of 
obtaining  acceptance  with  an  immaculate  Being? 
The  latter  exhibits  the  same  righteousness,  and  for 
the  same  purpose:  and,  hence,  circumcision,  its  an- 
cient token,  is  denominated  **  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faitliy'^    Is  it  Jehovah's  great  design, 
in  making  an  external  manifestation  of  his  covenant 
of  grace,  to  call,  convert,  and  save  his  elect?    Is 
this  the  principal  reason  why  it  is  exhibited  and 
preached  to  sinners  promiscuously?  The  same  great 
design  he  proposed  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant:  and 
this  constituted  the  principal  reason  why  it  was 
made  with  the  carnal,  as  well  as  with  the  spiritual, 
seed  of  his  faithful  servant.     Was  the  former  esta- 
blished through  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ?  The 
latter,  an  inspired  writer  tells  us,  was  confirmed  in 
Christ;!  who,  consequently,  is  the  mediator  of  it. 
Must  not,    then,   Ihese    two    covenants,    agreeing 
tlius  in  essential  points,  be  the  same  in  substance'^ 
Against  this  position,  will  any  object,  that  the 
covenant  of  grace  contains  only  spiritual  blessings? 
This  sentiment  is  sanctioned  by  liigh  authority.  But, 
in  opposition  to  it,  I  am  bold  to  assert,  that  it  is  a 
sentiment  which  cannot  be  supported;  a  sentiment 
contradicted  by  tlie  very  nature  of  tJiis  covenant,  and 
by  plain  scripture-promises.   This  covenant  certain- 

*Roiii.iv.  U.  fGal.  iii.  ir. 


Duties  of  the  Covenant.  Ill 

ly  contains  external,  as  well  as  spiritual  blessings. 
I  speak  confidently;  because  the  evidence  is  full  and 
decisive. 

How  does  the  covenant  of  grace  contemplate 
man?  Just  as  he  is:  as  a  creature  made  up  of  soul 
and  body;  as  fallen  into  a  state  of  sin  and  misery; 
as  struggling  with  wants  both  external  and  spiri- 
tual. And  what  is  the  design  of  this  covenant?  To 
relieve  the  wants  of  man;  to  redeem  him  out  of  all 
his  miseries.  Now,  can  it  be  admitted,  that  such  a 
covenant  makes  no  provision  for  supplying  his  ex- 
ternal wants?  Is  his  body  beneath  notice?  Are  tem- 
poral favours  unworthy  of  his  reception?  Has  God, 
in  his  covenant,  provided  amply  for  the  necessities 
of  his  soul,  and  overlooked  entirely  those  of  his 
body?  secured  to  him  by  promise  blessings  for  the 
next,  and  none  for  the  present  world?  AVhy  should 
wants  of  an  external  kind  be  thus  neglected?  Are 
they  not  the  consequences  of  sin,  of  breaking  the 
covenant  of  works?  and  is  not  the  covenant  of  grace 
intended  to  do  away  all  the  penal  effects  arising 
from  sin,  or  the  violation  of  the  other?  How,  then, 
can  it  be  admitted,  that  this  covenant  contains  no 
external  blessing? 

This  sentiment  is  contradicted,  in  plain  terms, 
by  the  promises  of  the  covenant.  Let  us  hear  them. 
"  Godliness  is  profitable  unto  all  things,  having 
promise  of  the  life  that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is 
to  come."*  "  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 

*  1  Tim.  iv,  8. 


IJta  XETTBR   VII. 

his  righteousness;  and  all  these  things  shall  he  added 
unto  you."^  <'  All  things  are  yours;  whether  Paul> 
or  ApoUos,  or  Cephas,  or  the  world,  or  life,  or 
death,  or  things  present)  or  things  to  come;  all  are 
yours;  and  ye  are  Christ's;  and  Christ  is  God*s»"f 
'<Be  content  with  such  things  as  ye  have:  for  he 
hath  said,  I  will  never  leave  thee,  nor  forsake 
thee.":|:  <*  My  God  shall  supply  all  your  need,  ac- 
cording to  his  riches  in  glory,  by  Christ  Jesus."§ 
Is  not  this  the  language  of  the  covenant  of  grace? 
Are  not  these  its  promises?  If  not,  to  what  covenant 
do  they  belong? 

But,  it  may  be  said,  temporal  blessings  are  be- 
stowed on  unbelievers,  as  well  as  on  believers.  Ad- 
mitted: the  fact,  however,  affords  no  evidence,  that 
we  are  not  to  consider  temporal  favours,  when  con- 
ferred on  believers,  as  the  fruit  of  covenant-promi- 
ses. The  head  of  a  family  gives  food  and  raiment 
to  his  domestics,  as  well  as  to  his  children:  but 
would  it  be  correct  in  the  latter  to  conclude,  that, 
because  domestics  participate  with  them  in  their 
father's  kindness,  they  ought  not  to  regard  such  fa- 
vours as  any  evidence  of  parental  love?  Can  it,  then, 
be  correct  in  believers,  the  children  of  God,  to  con- 
clude that,  because  the  munificence  of  their  liea- 
venly  Father  permits  unbelievers  to  share  with 
them  in  blessings  of  an  external  nature,  they  have 
no  reason  to  regard  such  as  fruits  of  his  covenant- 
love?  Highly  dangerous  it  would  indeed  be,  to  con- 

*  Mat.  vi.  33.     1 1  Cor.  iii.  2t— 23.     t  Ileb.  xiii.  5.     §  Phil.  iv.  1?. 


Duties  of  the  Covenant.  113 

sidcr  these  blessini^s  as  sufficient  evulence  of  their 
divine  adoption.  But,  liaving  ascertained  their  filial 
relation  to  God,  by  other  scriptural  marks,  they 
are  authorized  to  receive  every  blessing,  temporal 
as  well  as  spiritual,  as  coming  to  them  through  the 
channel  of  the  covenant,  and  as  tokens  of  divine  love. 

Many  afflictions  are  of  an  external  nature:  be- 
lievers and  unbelievers  are  alike  subject  to  them: 
yet  are  we  assured,  by  two  inspired  writers,  that* 
when  sent  as  chastisements  to  the  former,  they  pro- 
ceed from  parental  love,  and  are  to  be  regarded  as 
covenant-mercies.  "  Whom  the  Lord  loveth  he 
chasteneth,  and  scourgeth  everj  son  whom  he  re- 
ceiveth.  If  his  children  forsake  my  law,  and  walk 
not  in  my  judgments^  if  they  break  my  statutes, 
and  keep  not  my  commandments;  then  will  I  visit 
their  transgressions  with  a  rod,  and  their  iniquity 
with  stripes.  Nevertheless  my  loving  kindness  will 
I  not  utterly  take  from  him,  nor  suffer  my  faith- 
fulness to  fail.  My  covenant  will  I  not  break,  nor 
alter  the  thing  that  is  gone  out  of  my  lips."^ 

The  covenant  of  grace,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted, 
contemplates  especially  spiritual  blessings;  and, 
therefore,  it  abounds  with  promises  respecting  them. 
But  certainly  it  condescends  to  provide  for  man  in 
his  present  state,  and  to  supply  him  with  food,  and 
raiment,  and  comforts  pertaining  to  his  mortal  life. 
Beside  these,  there  are  other  more  important  bless- 
ings of  an  external  nature,  Avhich  result  from  this 

*  Heb.  xii.  6.  Psal.  Ixxxix.  30 — 3i. 
L2 


114  LETTER  VII, 

covenant.  The  sacred  scriptures, — the  preaching 
of  the  gospel, — an  order  of  men  consecrated  to  the 
ministry,  and  other  officers  of  the  visible  church, — 
the  means  of  grace, — baptism  and  the  Lord's  sup- 
per,— and  public  worship; — all  these  are  external 
blessings,  intimately  connected  with  spiritual  bene- 
fits: and  all,  it  must  be  confessed,  are  fruits  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  which  mankind  would  never  have 
enjoyed,  had  not  this  covenant  been  devised  and  re- 
vealed for  the  salvation  of  God's  elect. 

How  striking  the  resemblance  between  the  two 
covenants!  What  follows?  The  conclusion  at  which 
we  aimed  in  pointing  out  their  agreement^  namely. 
That  they  are  in  siihstance  the  same,^ 

*  In  explaining  the  covenant,  I  have  purposely  avoided  giving  to 
it  any  other  name,  than  that  derived  from  the  great  patriarch's  name, 
>vith  whom  it  was  made.  By  doing  so,  I  have  saved  myself  the  trou- 
ble  of  answering  objections,  that  would  have  occurred  from  another 
denomination  to  which  it  appears  justly  entitled.  My  object  has  been 
to  show  what  it  really  is  in  itself:  and  I  have  contented  myself  with 
proving  it  to  be,  in  substance,  the  same  as  the  covenant  of  gi-ace.  This 
■was  sufficient  for  my  argument;  and,  therefore,  I  choose  to  express 
my  full  opinion  in  this  note,  that  it  may  not  be  considered  as  any  part 
of  the  discussion. 

Abraham's  covenant  appears  to  be  a  new  dispensation  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  intended  by  Jehovah  to  constitute  and  orga- 
aize  1ms  church  in  that  patriarch's  family.  Before  this  memorable 
transaction,  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  revealed  to  mankind,  had  sub- 
sisted in  the  simple  form  oi  st.  promise.  But,  at  this  period,  the  Most 
High  condescended  to  present  it  to  the  faith  of  his  people,  in  the 
more  encouraging  form  of  a  regular  covenayit,  confirmed  by  a  visible 
sign  and  seal;  and  to  engage  to  transmit  the  invaluable  blessings  of  it, 
in  the  line  of  Abraham's  seed,  natural  and  adopted,  till  the  end  of 


Duties  of  the  Covenant.  115 

This  trutli  is  certainly  admitted  by  an  inspired 
writer^  for  he  rests  on  it  an  argument  of  great  im- 
portance to  the  faith  and  consolation  of  believers.^ 
Treating  of  God's  counsel  or  covenant  of  grace,  he 
conducts  his  readers  to  the  memorable  transactions 
with  Abraham;  and,  from  the  oath  >vhich  the  Most 
High  condescended  to  interpose  for  the  confirmation 
of  his  promises  to  the  patriarch,  he  evinces  the  im- 
mutability of  that  covenant  to  which  every  believer 
has  fled  for  refuge  to  his  guilty  soul.  But,  if  the 
covenant  of  Abraham  and  the  covenant  of  grace,  be 
entirely  and  essentially  different,  with  what  propri- 
ety could  the  apostle  infer  from  the  oath  confirming 
the  former,  that  the  latter  was  confirmed  by  the 
same  amazing  stoop  of  infinite  condescension?  Deny 
these  covenants  to  be  in  substance  the  same,  and 
you  subvert  the  very  foundation  on  which  the  sa- 
ered  writer  has  built  his  argument.  But  admit  this 
truth,  which  he  takes  for  granted,  and  the  propri- 
ety of  his  reasoning  is  immediately  perceived,  and 
its  energy  felt, 

the  world.  This  I  express  as  aa  opinion.  In  support  of  it  I  shall  offer 
BO  other  evidence,  than  what  arises  from  the  explafnation  which  has 
been  given  of  the  nature  of  the  covenant;  because,  as  already  men- 
tioned, I  do  not  wish  it  to  be  considered  as  forming  any  part  of  the 
disfeussion  contained  in  these  letters. 

*  Heb.  vi.  13,  20.  Gen.  xxii.  16,  17. 


LETTER  VIII. 

The  result:  Children  have  a  divine  right  to  bap- 
tism. 

Christian  Brethren, 

The  explanation  of  that  ever  memorable  cove- 
nant, which  Jehovah  condescended  to  make  with  A- 
braham,  is  now  finished.  Permit  me,  previously  to 
leading  you  to  consider  the  grand  result,  briefly  to 
recapitulate  the  truths  that  have  been  established 
and  illustrated.  In  the  course  of  these  letters,  we 
have  proved  the  following  points; 

1.  That  the  covenant  comprehends  both  spiritual 
and  external  blessings.* 

2.  That  its  design  was  and  is,  not  only  to  con- 
stitute the  visible  church  in  Abraham's  family,  but, 
also  and  chiefly,  to  perpetuate  among  his  seed  the 
spiritual  church,  and  to  transmit  to  God's  elect 
among  them,  from  generation  to  generation,  the 
blessings  of  life  and  salvation,  till  time  shall  end.f 

3.  That  the  covenant  is  perpetual.:}: 

*  Letter  II.         f  Letters  III,  V,  and  VI.         +  Letter  IV. 


Children's  Right  to  Saptism,  117 

*.  That  Gentile-believers,  and  their  children, 
have  an  interest  in  it,  being  the  seed  and  heirs  of 
their  father  Abraham,  ^i^ 

5.  That  this  covenant  imposes  on  every  cove- 
nantee the  great  duties  of  repentance,  faith,  and  uni- 
versal holiness;  and  special  obligations  on  parents 
to  train  up  their  children  in  the  fear  and  service  of 
God.f 

6.  Finally,  That  this  covenant  is,  in  substance, 
the  same  as  the  covenant  of  grace.:]: 

These  several  truths  are  intimately  connected, 
and  depend  one  upon  another,  as  stones  in  a  build- 
ing. They  are  all  essential  to  a  correct  knowledge 
of  that  gracious  covenant,  >vhich  secures  to  belie- 
vers and  their  children  privileges  and  blessings  more 
valuable  than  rubies,  and  much  fine  gold.  Take 
away  either  of  them,  and  you  obscure  its  glory;  if 
not  endanger  its  existence,  as  when  a  pillar  is  re- 
moved by  which  an  edifice  is  supported.  It  was  ne- 
cessary, therefore,  to  place  each  of  these  truths 
distinctly  before  you,  and  endeavour  to  establish 
your  faith  in  them,  by  solid  and  satisfactory  argu- 
ments. The  way  is  now  prepared  to  consider  the 
important  consequence,  deducible  from  the  discus- 
sion through  which  you  have  been  conducted. 

The  grand  result,  my  brethren,  of  all  these 

truths,   is,   THAT  CHILDREN   HAVE  A  DIVINE    RIGHT 
TO  BAPTISM. 

*  Letter  V  and  VI.  f  Lettter  VH  :^  Idem. 


118  LETTlEIl   VIII. 

1.  Their  interest  in  Mraham^s  covenant  entitles 
them  to  baptism.     Why  is  this  Christian  rite  admi- 
nistered to  adults?  Because  they  are  professed  be- 
lievers? Granted.   But  who  are  believers?  Children 
of  Abraham,  who,  having  by  faith  gained  an  inte- 
rest in  his  covenant,  receive,  as  his  appointed  heirs, 
all  its  spiritual  blessings,  as  an  inheritance,^^    If, 
then,  adults  are  baptized  because  they  appear  to  be 
believers,  and,  consequently,  children  of  Abraham; 
why  should  not  infants,  who  are,  as  well  as  their 
parents,  the  patriarch's  seed,  be  baptized?   When 
Gentiles  were  proselyted  to  the  Jewish  religion, 
circumcision  was  applied,  not  only  to  themselves, 
but  also  to  their  children;  signifying  that  both  had 
an  interest  in  this  covenant,  and  sustained  a  filial 
relation  to  Abraham.   And  why  should  not  the  same 
practice  prevail  under  the  Christian  dispensation? 
Why  should  a  token  of  their  relation  to  the  patri- 
arch, and  of  their  interest  in  his  covenant,  be  given 
to  adults,  and  refused  to  infants? 

2.  Children  are  members  of  the  church,  and, 
en  this  account  too,  they  ought  to  he  hapti^ed. 

The  visible  church  of  God  was  constituted  in 
Abraham's  family,  by  the  covenant  established  with 
him;  and  as  an  interest  in  it  was  expressly  granted 
to  children,  they  were,  of  course,  made  members  of 
this  holy  society.  Thus  they  remained,  through 
many  successive  generations  and  ages,  till  the  com- 

*  See  pages  22 — 25. 


thildren's  Bight  to  Baplisnu  119 

Hiencement  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  During 
that  long  period,  no  one  disputed  tlieir  special  rela- 
tion to  God;  all  admitted  it:  and,  according  to  di- 
vine direction,  they  were  circumcised  as  regular 
jnemhers  of  his  church.  Nor  do  the  opponents  of  in- 
fant baptism  deny  this  fact.  They  too  confess  the 
church-membership  of  Jewish  children,  and  allow 
that  they  had  a  right  to  the  covenant-token.  AVhy, 
then,  should  any  deny  that  children,  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation,  are  members  of  the  church  of 
God?  Had  the  covenant,  constituting  this  sacred 
society  in  Abraham's  family,  been  abolished,  or  had 
God  deprived  them  of  their  covenant-interest,  their 
membership  would  certainly  have  been  lost.  But 
neither  has  heen  done.  God  has  not  taken  away 
their  ancient  privilege;  nor  has  he  abolished  his 
gracious  covenant  with  the  father  of  the  faithful. 
On  the  contrary,  he  has  expressly  taught  us  in  his 
word,  that  it  remains  in  full  force,  and,  consequent- 
ly, that  children  retain  their  covenant-relation  to 
liim.  It  follows,  then,  from  these  facts,  that  chil- 
dren, under  the  present  dispensation,  are  memhers 
of  the  church.  For  certainly  their  relation  to  God, 
arising  out  of  their  covenant-interest,  is  the  very 
same  relation  which  was  constituted  between  God 
and  Jewish  children,  by  their  covenant-interest: 
and  as  this  relation  made  the  latleVf  so  it  must  make 
iheformeVf  members  of  his  church. 

ArVhen  Gentile  children  were  brought  into  the  co- 
venant;  by  the  conversion  of  their  parents  from  idols 


120  LETTER  nil, 

to  the  God  of  Israel,  their  right  to  be  members  of 
his  church,  was  acknowledged  by  circumcision. 
How  unreasonable,  then,  to  dispute  the  member- 
ship of  Christian  children,  who,  like  Abraham's 
natural  seed,  are  born  in  the  covenant!  The  church, 
it  is  true,  is  no  longer  under  the  law  of  Moses,  and 
has  experienced  in  her  form  of  government,  and 
modes  of  worship,  a  most  beneficial  and  glorious 
change.  But,  she  is  still,  as  has  been  proved,  the 
same  .church;  the  Christian  being  only  a  continua- 
tion of  the  Jewish  church,  in  a  state  highly  im- 
proved with  respect  to  light,  privileges,  and  grace. 
And  shall  we,  merely  on  account  of  this  great,  but 
advantageous  alteration  in  external  matters,  cast 
our  dear  oifspring  over  her  sacred  enclosure,  as  ali- 
ens; although  her  glorious  Head  assures  us,  that 
they  retain  their  ancient  relation  to  himself,  and 
enjoy  an  interest  in  that  very  covenant,  by  which 
his  church  was  established  in  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham, <*  who  is  the  father  of  us  all,"*  and  which  still 
remains  as  her  grand  constitution?  Surely  the  in- 
crease of  privilege  was  intended  for  the  benefit  of 
every  class  of  her  members;  and  children  have  a 
right,  as  well  as  their  parents,  to  share  in  favours 
bestowed  by  our  Lord  on  his  whole  church. 

Is  not  this  sufficient  to  evince  the  membership 
of  children  in  the  church  of  Christ?  Will  any  re- 
solve not  to  be  satisfied,  unless  a  passage  be  pro- 
duced,  saying,   in  so  many  words,  Children  are 

*  Rom.  iv.  16- 


Children's  Right  to  Baptism,  121 

members  of  the  church?    We  confess  no  such  text 
can  be  found:  and  these  persons  must  be  left  to  conse- 
quences resulting  from  their  unreasonable  demands. 
But  we  can  produce  a  passage,  which  ought  to  be 
regarded  as  equivalent.     Here  it  is:  **  Jesus  said. 
Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forhid  them  not:  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
GOD."*     The  kingdom  of  God  means  the  church  of 
God.    See  Mat.  xii.  28,  xxi.  43.   Mark  i.  14.  Acts 
viii.  12.  XX.  25.  xxyiii.  31.     Here,   then,  our  Lord 
tells  us,  that  little  children  belong  to   his  church. 
Change,  in  this  text,  only  one  word  for  another  of 
the  same  meaning,  and  it  will  read  thus:  <*  Jesus 
said,  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid  them  not:  for  of  such  is  the  church  of  God." 
Is  not  this  a  plain  scriptural  proof  of  the  church- 
membership  of  children?    Can  any  reasonably  ask 
for  a  plainer  one?  Are  they  determined  not  to  be 
satisfied,  unless  inspiration  use  words  which  they 
choose  to  dictate? 

I  am  aware,  that  some  endeavour  to  set  aside 
this  explicit  testimony  of  our  Lord  in  favour  of  the 
right  of  his  people's  offspring.  But  the  construc- 
tion which  they  put  on  his  words,  is  wholly  inad- 
luissiblc.  It  destroys  the  force  of  his  argument. 
They  assert  he  does  not  mean,  that  little  children 
belong  to  the  kingdom  or  church  of  God,  but  adult 
believers,  who  resemble  little  children  in  their  tem- 
per.  Apply  this  interpretation  to  tlie  argument.    It 

*  Mark  x.  14. 
M 


122  1.ETTER    VIII. 

will  stand  thus:  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  and  forbid  them  not:  for  such  adults  as  re- 
semble them,  belong  to  tlie  kingdom  of  God.  What 
an  argument!  Is  the  likeness  of  believers,  in  humi- 
lity and  meekness,  to  cliildren,  a  reason  why  little 
children  should  be  brought  to'  Christ?  Believers,  in 
their  disposition,  resemble  sheep  and  doves;  and 
therefore,  it  will,  according  to  this  argument,  fol- 
low, that  these  animals  should  be  brought  to  Christ. 
This  construction,  you  see,  destroys  both  the  force 
and  the  propriety  of  our  Lord's  reason,  for  permit- 
ting children  to  have  access  to  him. 

Now,  try  the  argument  by  our  interpretation  of 
his  words,  and  you  will  perceive  his  reason  to  be 
just,  forcible,  and  conclusive.  Suffer  little  children 
to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not:  for  they  be- 
long to  the  kingdom  of  God.  They  are  members 
of  my  church;  and,  therefore,  they  have  a  right  to 
come  to  her  glorious  Head:  their  parents  may,  with 
great  propriety,  bring  tlicm  to  me  for  my  blessing; 
and  those  who  forbid  them  to  come,  and  prevent 
their  access  to  me,  deprive  them  of  a  right  which 
I  have  granted. 

Besides,  the  original  will  not  bear  the  other 
construction.  *'  I  cannot,"  says  the  candid  and 
learned  Doct.  Doddrige,  on  this  text,  ^«  approve  of 
rendering  ro/«>»  such  as  resemble  these.  It  is  the 
part  of  a  faithful  translator  not  to  limit  the  sense 
of  the  original,  nor  to  fix  what  it  leaves  ambiguous." 
These  two  important  points  have,  I  think,  been 
fairly  and  solidly  established: 


ChilAreiCs  Right  to  Baptism,  123 

1.  Children  have  an  interest  in  tlie  covenant  of 
Abraham; 

2.  Children  are  members  of  the  church  of  Christ. 
From  these  premises,  Ave  infer  their  divine  right 

to  baptism.  .  But,  before  I  advance  in  my  argument, 
an  objection  must  be  refuted. 

We  are  denied  the  privilege  of  deducing  our 
children's  right  from  fair  principles.  You  have  no 
express  precept,  nor  plain  apostolic  example  for  in- 
fant baptism,  say  its  opponents:  and,  as  baptism  is 
a  positive  ordinance,  you  may  not  prove  the  right 
of  children  to  it  by  inference  and  moral  considera- 
tions. Yet  these  very  persons  often  find  it  very  con- 
venient, and  sometimes  really  necessary,  to  reason 
in  this  way:  and,  when  it  serves  their  purpose,  do 
not  hesitate  to  use  the  privilege  denied  to  us.  A 
writer  of  reputation*  has  published  two  duodecimo 
volumes  on  the  subject  of  baptism:  although  he  has 
laid  it  down  as  a  maxim,  that,  with  respect  to  this 
ordinance,  it  is  unlawful  to  deduce  consequences 
from  remote  principles;  and  that  the  right  of  no 
person,  not  established  by  express  precept,  or  plain 
apostolic  example,  may  be  made  out  by  inferential 
considerations.  You  may  well  wonder,  how  he  could 
contrive  to  make  his  work  so  bulky,  while  he 
cramped  his  reasoning  faculties  by  such  a  maxim! 
The  fact  is,  he  has  not  regarded  it:  he  has  violated 
it  in  many  instances, 

*  Booth 


1S4  I.ETTER   VIIJ. 

Tliis  rule,  laid  down  by  writers  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  question,  is  highly  unreasonable  and  ar- 
bitrary. A  right  establislied  by  inference  from  solid 
principles,  is  not  to  be  disputed.  Our  opponents  ad- 
mit it,  in  fact,  with  regard  to  female  communi- 
cants. No  express  precept,  nor  plain  apostolic  ex- 
ample, can  be  pleaded  for  the  admission  of  women 
to  the  Lord's  supper.  Their  right  to  approach  is 
deduced  from  moral  considerations:  it  is  inferred 
from  their  qualifications.  They  are  believers,  and 
have,  therefore,  as  good  a  right  to  commune  with 
their  Saviour,  as  male  believei's.  On  this  ground, 
and  no  other,  arc  they  admitted  to  the  holy  table." 
And,  indeed,  this  maxim  is  daily  violated  by  its 
avowed  friends.  A,  B,  and  C,  apply  for  baptism. 
The  question  is.  Have  they  a  right  to  it?  How  is 
this  question  to  be  determined?  It  will  not  be  pre- 
tended, that  A,  B,  and  C,  are  mentioned,  hy  name, 
in  scripture,  as  having  a  right  to  the  ordinance. 
The  scriptures  recognise,  with  respect  to  adults, 
only  the  right  of  believers.  Hence,  the  advocates 
of  this  maxim  are  compelled  to  examine  these  ap- 
plicants, on  their  religious  experience,  Avith  a  view 
to  ascertain  whether  they  be  believers.  The  exa- 
mination being  finished,  they  conclude,  that  A,  B, 
and  C,  have  experienced  a  work  of  grace  on  their 
hearts,  have  repented  of  their  sins,  and  exercised 
a  true  faith.  On  this  discovery  they  reason  thus; 
The  apostles  baptized  believers^  these  applicants 
are  believers^  therefore,  they  have  a  right  to  bap- 


Children's  Right  to  Baptism,  125 

tism.  The  reasoning  is  short;  but  not  shorter  than 
ours  in  favour  of  children.  AVc  reason  thus:  The 
apostles  baptized  members  of  the  church;  infants 
are  members  of  the  church;  therefore,  infants  have 
a  right  to  baptism. 

Who  can  deprive  us  of  the  privilege  of  pleading 
the  cause  of  our  offspring  by  fair  arguments?  Surely 
we  have  as  just  a  right  to  reason  on  the  subject  of 
baptism,  as  others  who  use  it,  their  own  maxim  not- 
withstanding. We  know  that  our  practice  is  cor- 
rect, because  an  apostle  has  set  us  the  example. 
When  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  Cornelius,  the  Roman 
centurion,  and  his  friends,  a  new  case  occurred,  in- 
volving a  question  relative  to  baptism.  What  shall 
be  done  to  these  men?  Shall  they  be  baptized?  Pe- 
ter determines  the  question.  How?  By  pleading  the 
original  commission  to  baptize  all  nations^  No:  he 
appears  to  have  forgotten  it,  or,  at  least,  not  to 
have  understood  its  extent:  for  if  he  had,  there 
would  have  been  no  necessity  for  a  vision  to  induce 
him  to  comply  with  the  centurion's  invitation  to  vi- 
sit him.^  It  is  certain,  Peter  does  not  determine 
the  question,  by  recurring  to  his  commission;  for 
the  sacred  narrative  says  not  a  word  about  it.  How, 
then,  is  it  done?  By  violating  this  maxim,  invented 
to  excommunicate  infants  from  the  church  of  God; 
by  urging  an  argument  founded  on  the  qualifications 
of  these  heathen  for  baptism.  He  sees  them  to  be 
fit  subjects  for  this  ordinance;  and  from  their  fit« 

*  Acts  X.  9--20,  28. 
M  2 


126  lETTER  VIII. 

iiess,  he  infers  their  right.  "  Can  any  man  forbid 
water,  that  these  should  not  he  baptized,  which 
have  received  the  Hohj  Ghost  as  ivell  as  weT^^  His 
argument  is:  All  Jewish  converts,  receiving  the 
Holj  Ghost,  have  a  right  to  baptism;  these  mea 
have  received  the  Holy  Ghost;  therefore,  they  have 
a  right  to  baptism.  This  argument  satisfied  Peter 
and  his  circumcised  companions.  "  He  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."f 

Authorized  by  apostolic  example,  We  are  deter- 
mined to  assert  our  privilege.  Our  principles  are 
sound;  and  our  conclusion  is  incontrovert^ible.  In- 
fants are  in  covenant  with  God,  and  members  of  his 
church.  Hence,  we  infer  their  divine  right  to  bap- 
tism; because  it  is  our  Lord's  will,  that  all  mem- 
bers of  his  church  should  be  baptized.  Adults,  not 
descended  from  Christian  parents,  having  by  faith 
gained  an  interest  in  this  covenant,  and  become  the 
children  of  Abraliam,  and  made  a  credible  profes- 
sion of  religion,  are  regularly  introduced  to  church- 
fellowship  by  baptism;  (Compare  Acts  ii.  41  with 
the  i7th  verse;)  and  shall  we  refuse  baptism  to  in- 
fants  horn  in  covenant  with  God,  horn  children  of 
Abraham,  horn  members  of  the  church?  Shall  we 
refuse  to  them  the  token  of  the  covenant,  the  seal 
of  their  father,  the  sign  of  fellowship  in  Christ's 
church?  How  unjust  would  it  be  thus  to  deprive 
helpless  infants,  who  cannot  plead  their  own  cause, 
of  their  hirth-rightJ  to  cast  them  out  of  that  holy 

*  Acts  X.  47.  t  Acts  X.  48. 


Children's  Right  to  Baptism.  127 

society,  in  which  their  heavenly  Father  has  recorded 
their  names/  to  deny  their  relation  to  God,  secured 
to  them  by  his  immutable  covenant!  We  dare  not 
treat,  in  this  cruel  and  unjust  manner,  those  little 
children  who,  Christ  assures  us,  belong  to  his  king- 
dom, his  visible  church  on  earth.  We  joyfully  ac- 
knowledge their  relation  to  him,  and  publicly  re- 
cognise it,  by  "  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'* 

Here,  my  brethren,  the  matter  might  be  rested. 
The  conclusion  in  favour  of  our  children  is  built  on 
solid  principles.  Permit,  me,  however,  to  strength- 
en it,  by  presenting  you  with  additional  evidence  in 
support  of  their  right.  We  undertake  to  prove. 
That  haptism  is,  in  fact,  the  christian  seal  of 
Abraham's  covenant.  If  this  point  be  established, 
should  not  every  objection  against  infant  baptism  be 
jj^nt?  We  oifer  the  following  arguments: 

If  baptism  be  not  a  seal  to  this  covenant,  it  has 
no  initial  seal: — Baptism  seals  the  grand  promise 
and  leading  benefits,  and  imposes  the  duties,  of  this 
covenant: — -An  inspired  writer  teaches  us,  that  bap- 
tism has  come  in  place  of  circumcision: — Baptism 
is  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  The  discussion 
of  these  points,  I  reserve  for  my  next  letter. 


LETTER  IX. 

The  subject  resumed.  Children  have  a  divine  right 
to  baptism, — Baptism  a  seal  of  Mraham^s  cove- 
nant,'^Ohservations  on  the  nature  of  baptism. 

Christian  Brethren, 

In  my  last  was  laid  before  you  the  result  of 
the  several  truths,  illustrated  and  established  in  the 
preceding  letters.  It  was  evinced,  front  the  cove- 
nant-interest, and  the  church-membership  of  chil- 
dren, that  they  have  a  divine  right  to  baptism.  I 
now  undertake  to  prove  baptism  to  be  the  Christian 
seal  of  Abraham's  covenant. 

1.  Baptism  must  be  its  seal,  or  it  has  no 
INITIAL  seal.  Circumcision  was  originally  appen- 
ded to  this  covenant  as  its  token  or  seal.  But,  the 
use  of  circumcision  having,  by  express  direction 
from  heaven,  been  abolished,  it  has,  under  the  pre- 
sent economy,  no  seal;  unless  baptism  have  assumed 
the  place  of  circumcision.  Can  this  be  admitted, 
by  any  one  acquainted  with  God's  gracious  dealings 
with  the  church — that  his  covenant,  so  long  con- 
firmed by  an  appointed  seal,  has  been  deprived  of  it, 
and  left  to  operate  without  such  an  assistance  to  his 
people's  faith?  How  contrary  would  this  be  to  all 
former  analogy!  Did  God  make  a  covenant  with  our 


Children's  Might  to  Baptism.  129 

lirst  parents?  It  was  confirmed  bj  suitable  seals:  by 
« the  tree  of  Hfe,^'  and  «« the  tree  of  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil.-*^  Did  he  make  a  covenant  with 
mankind  and  witli  all  flesh,  that  the  earth  sliould 
never  be  again  destroyed  by  a  deluge?  He  appointed 
his  hoivinthe  cloud  as  aeonfirming  sign;  that,  when- 
ever mankind  beheld  it  arching  the  sky,  tliey  might 
be  reminded  of  his  gracious  promise,  and  be  as- 
sured of  its  faithfulness.!  Did  he  make  a  covenant 
with  Abraham?  It  was  confirmed  by  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision. Did  he  make  a  covenant  with  his  peo- 
ple Israel,  at  Mount  Sinai?  It  was  confirmed  to 
them  by  the  blood  of  calves  and  of  goats.ij:  Has  he 
made  a  covenant  of  grace  with  his  church?  It  was 
confirmed,  under  the  former  economy,  by  appointed 
signs;  and,  under  tlie  present,  it  is  confirmed  by  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  supper. 

Now,  when  we  consider,  that  it  has  been  the  uni- 
form practice  of  the  Most  High  in  his  dealings  with 
mankind,  to  annex  to  every  covenant  made  with 
them  a  confirming  sign;  can  it  be  admitted,  that  he 
has  not  substituted,  in  the  place  of  circumcision, 
abolished  by  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  a  seal 
to  confirm  his  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed? 
What  reason  could  be  assigned  for  such  a  strange 
anomaly  in  divine  procedure?  Not  the  abolition  of 
visible  signs  and  seals  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion: for  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  are  both 
visible  signs;  and,  being  signs,  they  must  be  seals. 

*  Geii.  ii.  9,  16,  ir.      f  (^eu.  ix.  9—17.      *  Heb,  ix.  18—20. 


loO  LETTER   IX. 

The  cup,  used  in  the  latter  ordinance,  is  expresslj^ 
called  "  the  new  testament  in  the  Mood  of 
Christ;^'^  that  is,  a  sign  and  seal  of  it:  for,  as  the 
emblem  of  his  blood,  it  does  in  a  figure  what  his 
blood  did  injfacf,-ratify  and  seal  the  New  Testament. 
There  are,  then,  two  visible,  confirming  signs  un- 
der the  present  economy:  and  yet,  as  some  say,  the 
covenant  of  Abraham  has  no  seal!  Strange  indeed! 
Who  can  believe  it? 

If  this  be  fact,  then  has  God  put  it  out  of  the 
power  of  his  church  to  obey  an  express  command 
of  his  covenant:  <•  My  covenant  shall  be  in  your 
flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant.''!  Observe,  it  is 
not  said,  Circumcision,  but  "  My  covenant,''*  that 
is,  the  tohen  of  it,  "  shall  be  in  your  flesh."  Now, 
as  long  as  circumcision  was  in  use,  this  command 
made  it  the  church's  duty  to  circumcise  her  mem- 
bers. But  circumcision  has  been  abolished  by  po- 
sitive precept.  If,  therefore,  baptism  be  not  the 
covenant-token,  obedience  to  this  command,  in  re- 
gard to  children,  is  impossible.  The  covenant  is 
everlasting,*  it  exists  under  the  present  economy: 
but  the  impression  of  it  is  not  seen  in  the  flesh  of 
God's  people!  But  admit  baptism  to  be  the  Christian 
seal  of  it,  and  obedience  to  this  explicit  command 
becomes  practicable.  The  covenant  of  Jehovah  ap- 
pears still,  in  the  flesh  of  his  people,  as  an  everlast- 
ing covenant:  they  are  impressed  with  its  new  token, 
being  washed  with  the  water  of  baptism.^: 

*  1  Cor.  xi.  25.  T  See  Witsius  on  the  covenants, 

t  Gen,  xvii.  13  vol.  III.  p.  3S5. 


Children- s  Right  to  Baptism*  131 

2.  Baptism,  in  pact,  seals  the  grand  pro- 
mise AND  leading    benefits   OF   THIS   COVENANT, 
AND    IMPOSES    THB     VERY    DUTIES    AVHICH    IT    RE- 
QUIRES.    The  administration  of  it  is  accompanied 
with  these  solemn  and  significant  words;  <'  I  baptize 
thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  J'     What  is  the  import  of  this  sa- 
cred form?  "Here,"  a  writer  justly  observes,  "the 
blessed  God  is  revealed,  under  the  Paternal  name, 
as  the  object  of  repentance  and  mercy;  under  the 
Filial  character,  as  the  immediate  object  of  confi- 
dence for  pardon,  peace,  and  protection;  under  the 
denomination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  object  of 
dependence  for  illumination,  sauctification,  and  con- 
solation.'*''^    Here  God  exhibits  himself  as  recon- 
ciling sinners  to  himself  through  Jesus  Christ,  his 
Son.     His  language  to  every  baptized  person,  is,  I 
will,  according  to  the  tenor  of  my  covenant,  be  a 
God  to  thee:  for,  surely,  the  exhibition  which  Jeho- 
vah here  makes  of  himself  as  the  fountain  of  hap- 
piness and  source  of  pardoning  mercy,  is  the  same 
as  that  which  he  makes  of  himself  in  the  gospel; 
and  the  promise,  sealed  by  tliis  rite,  must  be  that 
which  is  made  known  by  the  gospel.     What  is  this 
promise?  "I  will  dwell  in  them,  and  walk  in  them; 
and  J  will  he  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  ray  peo- 
ple.    Wherefore  come  out  from  among  them,  and 
be  ye  separate,  saith  the  Lord,  and  touch  not  the 
unclean  thing;  and  I  will  receive  you;  and  will  be  a 

*  Booth,  vol.  II,  p.  306. 


13^  LETTER   IX. 

/ 

Father  unto  you,  and  je  shall  be  my  sons  and  daugh- 
ters, saith  the  Lord  Almighty."^  It  is  plain,  then, 
from  the  obvious  import  of  the  saered  form  in  which 
it  is  administered,  that  baptism  makes  precisely  the 
same  exhibition  of  God,  which  is  made  in  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  and  seals  the  very  promise  which 
it  contains. 

More  particularly:  Baptism  signifies  aud  seals 
the  leading  benefits  of  this  covenant.  Is  union  to 
the  church  of  God  one  of  its  benefits?  Baptism  is 
connected  with  it:  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received 
his  word,  were  baptized:  and  the  same  day  there 
were  added  unto  them  (the  church.  Acts  ii.  47) 
about  three  thousand  souls. '-|  For  by  one  Spirit 
are  we  baptized  into  one  bodij^  Avhether  we  be  Jews 
or  GGnliles>::|:  that  is,  externally  into  the  visible 
church,  by  water-baptism;  ^nd  spirituulhj ^  into  the 
mystical  body  of  Christ,  by  the  baptism  cf  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Is  the  righteousness  of  faiih,  or  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  a  benefit  o^this  covenant?  Baptism 
is  connected  with  it:  <*  Repent,  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for 
the  remission  of  sins."  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  th^  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord."*§  Is  sanctiiication  a  benefit  of  this  covenant? 
Baptism  is  connected  with  it:  *«  But  according  to 
his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion, and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.*'*^     Is  tliG 

*  2  Cor.  vi.  16 — 18.       f  Acts  ii.  41,  42.       ^  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  Rom.  \i.  3. 
§  Acts  ii.  58,  and  xxii.  16.       **  Tit.  iii.  5.  1  Pet.  lii.  21. 


ehildren's  Right  to  Baptism.  13S 

gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  a  benefit  of  this  covenant? 
Baptism  is  connected  with  it:  ♦<  Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized—and ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.''^  \ 

From  these  quotations,  it  appears,  that  the  in* 
spired  writers  have  established  a  connexion  between 
baptism  and  the  leading  benefits  of  Abraham's  co- 
venant. But  what  is  the  nature  of  this  connexion? 
Unquestionably  that  which  subsists  between  a  bless- 
ing and  a  sign;  for  baptism  is  a  visible  sign:  and  be- 
ing a  sign  of  these  benefits,  it  must  be  a  seal  of  them; 
because  a  sign  is  given  to  confirm  any  promise  or 
grant  to  which  it  is  applied. f 

Let  us  consider  the  duties  imposed  by  this  sa- 
cred rite  of  our  holy  religion.  What  are  they?  None 

*  Acts  ii.  38. 

•j-  The  last  text  quoted  is  followed  by  these  memorable  words; 
'*  For  the  promise  is  urito  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that 
are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  oiir  God  shall  call.'*  In 
explaining  this  passage,  some  maintain,  that  Peter  i-efers  to  the 
grand  promise  in  Abraham's  covenant,  and,  consequently,  that  an 
immediate  connexion  is  here  established  between  this  covenant  and 
baptism.  But  those  who  would  destroy  this  connexion,  so  fatal  to 
their  cause,  contend  that  the  apostle  refers  to  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit.  Let  us  grant  what  they  demand;  let  us  admit  that  Peter  is 
speaking  of  this  promise:  still  the  connexion  between  baptism  and 
Abraham's  covenant,  can  be  fairly  demonstrated  from  this  text, 
because  the  promise  recorded  in  Joel  was  included  In  that  covenant, 
and,  when  delivered  by  the  prophet,  was  only  a  development  of  its 
unsearchable  riches.  St.  Paul,  treating  of  this  covenant,  enume- 
rates among  the  blessings  of  Abraham,  the  promise  of  the  Spirit: 
*'That  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through 
Jesus   Christ;  that  we  might  receive   the  promise   of  the  Spirit 

N 


iSi  LETTER   IX. 

will  deny  the  subject  to  be  dedicated  to  that  Su- 
preme Being,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  in 
whose  name  he  is  baptized;  and  that  baptism  binds 
upon  him,  in  a  most  solemn  manner,  the  great  duties 
of  a  living  faith,  repentance  unfeigned,  and  new  obe- 
dience. Now,  these  are  the  Tery  duties  which  the  co- 
venant, made  with  the  father  of  the  faithful,  imposes 
on  every  covenantee.!  They  were  summarily  stated, 
in  those  emphatical  words  with  which  the  Most  High 
introduced  this  memorable  transaction:  "  Walk  be- 
foreme,  andbe  thou  pevfect:^'  and  they  are  stated,  by 
a  writer  of  the  New  Testament,  in  language  equally 
emphatical,  and  somewhat  similar,  as  the  known 
obligation  of  baptism:  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  deatli;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even 
so  we  also  should  w  .vlk  in  neivness  of  life.^^\ 

Now,  can  a  doubt  remain  whether  baptism  5s  a 
seal  of  Abraham's  covenant?  It  seals  its  grand  pro- 
mise and  leading  benefits;  and  it  imposes  its  great 
duties.  It  must,  therefore,  be  a  seal  to  this  cove- 
nant. 

3.  We  are  taught  hy  an  inspired  instructer,  that 
baptism  has  come  in  place   of  circumcision: 

through  faith.*  Baptism,  then,  heing  connected  with  this  promise, 
must  necessarily  be  connected  with  the  covenant  to  which  the  pro- 
mise belongs. 

*  Gftl.  iii.  14, 
t  See  Letter  VH.  *  Rom.  vi.  6,  4^ 


Children's  Bight  to  Baptism,  135 

In  whom  also  ye  arc  circumcised  icith  the  circumci- 
sion made  without  hands,  in  jniiiing  off  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  jiesh,  by   the  circumcision   of 

CHRIST;    BURIED    >VITH    HIM    IN    BAPTISM,    ivhcreiu 

also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead.* 

That  we  may  take  a  fair  view  of  the  evidence 
contained  in  this  text,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consi- 
der the  object  and  scope  of  the  apostle's  reasoning. 
The  Colossian  converts  were,  like  other  primitive 
believers,  exposed  to  danger  arising  from  two  quar- 
ters; the  influence  of  Judaizing  teachers,  who  cor- 
rupted the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  by  compounding 
it  with  the  law  of  Moses;  and  the  influence  of  pro- 
fessing Christians,  who  corrupted  it,  by  mixing  it 
"with  the  tenets  of  Pagan  philosophy.  Hence,  the 
great  object  of  Paul  was  to  preserve  their  faith 
unadulterated  by  the  errors  of  either  class  of  teach- 
ers. To  gain  his  object,  he  exhibits  the  Lord  Jesus, 
in  all  his  mediatorial  glories,  as  "  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God;"  as  the  Creator  of  all  things,  visible 
and  invisible;  as  reconciling  heaven  and  earth,  by 
the  blood  of  his  cross:  and  then  assures  them,  that, 
in  so  glorious  a  Mediator,  in  whom  "  dwells  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,"  they  were  com- 
plete; not  needing  the  aid  of  those  dependencies 
which  false  teachers  proposed,  but  which  the  gos- 
pel,  so  far  from  recommending,  discountenanced  and 

*  Col.  ii.  11,  12. 


4^3^  3LETTER   IX. 

Goiide toned.  And  he  particularly  disproves  the  ihj 
eessity  of  circumcision,  an  which  the  advocates  of 
Moses,  so  inueh  and  so  earnestly,  insisted;  by  show- 
ing, jirst^  that  they  had  the  thing  signified  by  cir- 
tumeision:  "  In  wliom  ye  also  are  circumcised,^'  &c. 
y.  11 — and,  then,  that  the  external  rite,  bajftism,  is, 
under  the  new,  what  circumcision  was  under  the 
©Id,  dispensation;  namely,  a  sign  and  a  seal  of  the 
covenant:  '^  Buried  with  him  in  haplism,'^  &c.  v.  12. 
Both  parts  were  necessary  to  complete  his  argu- 
ment, and  make  it  conclusive.  For  had  the  apostle 
only  said,  that  believers  in  Christ  have  the  thing 
signified,  the  circumcision  of  the  heart;  the  advo- 
oates  of  Moses  might  have  replied.  Admitting  this 
truth,  it  does  not,  in  the  least,  militate  against  the 
outward  rite,  the  sign  of  a  work  af  grace  in  the 
heart,  Abraham  was  a  gracious  person,  circum- 
cised in  heart,  long  before  the  institution  of  circum- 
cision: and,  if  possession  of  the  thing  signified,  by 
the  father  of  the  faithful,  did  not  supersede  the  use 
of  an  external  sign,  how  can  it  prove  a  sign  to  be 
unnecessary  to  his  children?  This  objection  the 
apostle  anticipates;  and  he  removes  it,  by  showing, 
tliat  baptism  now  does  the  office  of  circumcision, 
exhibiting  and  sealing  the  same  covenant-benefits. 

We  find,  in  this  text,  a  further  confirmation  of 
the  substitution  of  the  Christian  for  the  Jewish  rite. 
Baptism  is  denominated  the  circumcision  of  Christ. 
That  the  inspired  writer  means  by  this  phrase, 
neither  our  Lord's  j>ersonal  circumcision,  nor  tht 


Children-s  Right  to  Baptism,  ±57 

spiritual  eircuracision  of  his  disciples,  but  Christian 
baptism,  is  evident  from  the  twelfth  verse,  in  which 
he  explains  this  to  be  the  signification.  I  am  aware, 
that  to  this  interpretation  it  may  be  objected:  Bap- 
tism is  made  by  hands;  and  the  apostle  is  speaking 
of  a  circumcision  made  without  hands.  But  the 
force  of  the  objection  will  be  dissipated,  if  it  be  con- 
sidered that  he  speaks,  first,  of  the  thing  signijied, 
a  work  of  grace  on  the  heart,  denominated  ^'  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands;"  and,  then,  of  the 
sign  of  this  work,  which  he  terms.  The  circumci- 
sion  of  Christ, 

This  passage  is  similar  to  one  in  Peter.  Speak- 
of  the  ark,  he  says,  "  The  like  figure  whereunto 
even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us,  (not  the  putting 
away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a 
good  conscience  toward  God,)  by  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ."  Here  baptism  is  considered  as 
instrumental  in  effecting  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science; which  is  as  much  a  work  made  without 
hands,  as  spiritual  circumcision,  **the  putting  off 
the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh."  In  the  text  un- 
der discussion,  baptism  is  presented  in  the  same 
light;  as  instrumental  in  producing  the  circumcision 
of  the  heart. 

This  passage  may  be  paraphrased  thus:  *'  In 
whom,"  that  is,  Christ,  to  whom  you  are  united  by 
faiih,  <»ye  are  circumcised  with  the"  spiritual  "cir- 
cumcision" of  the  heart,  *•  made  without  hands,"  by 
the  grace  of  God,  which  consists  '*  in  putting  off*  the 
n2 


±SS  LETTER  IX. 

body  of  the  sins  of  the  flcsli:"  aud  this  spiritual 
work,  although  wrought  by  the  immediate  agency 
of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  yet  is  instrumentally  effeeted 
hy  that  external  ordinance  which  exltihits  and  seals 
this  benefit  of  the  covenant;  and  which,  being  in 
import  the  same  with  the  Jewish  rite,  may  very 
properly  be  called,  "  The  circumcision  of  Christ,'^ 
I  mean  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  in  which  you 
were  <*  buried  with  him,  and  wherein  also  ye  are 
risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of 
aod,''  &c. 

i.  Baptism  must  be  a  seal  ot  Abraham's  co- 
venant,  BECAUSE  IT  IS  A  SEAX  OF  THE  COVENANT 

or  GRACE.  To  prove  baptism  to  be  a  seal  of  the 
latter,  I  refer  you  to  those  texts  quoted  in  page  132, 
to  evince  that  it  signifies  and  seals  union  to  the 
church,  the  righteousness  of  faith,  sanctification, 
and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  acknowledged  bene- 
fits of  the  covenant  of  grace.  Now,,  if  this  Chris- 
tian* rite  be  a  seal  to  these  its  leading^  benefits,  i( 
must  be  a  seal  of  the  covenant  itself. 

There  h  yet  another  passage  of  sacred  scrip- 
ture that  strongly  confirms  this  truth.  It  records; 
the  commission  Avhich  Jesus  Christ  gave  to  his  apos- 
tles:. <*  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  (disciple)  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  m  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teacliing 
them  ta  observe  all  tilings  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
atandcd  you."     Here,   baptism  aiid  teaching  are 


Children* s  Right  to  Baptism,  ts^ 

closely  connected.  Baptism  is  a  sensible  and  visible 
sign.  Of  what  is  it  the  sign?  Unquestionably  of 
something  exhibited  and  inculcated  in  the  teaching 
of  these  divinely  commissioned  instructcrs.  AVhat 
did  they  exhibit?  The  covenant  of  grace,  and  its  glo- 
rious benefits.  These  they  held  forth  to  the  view  of 
mankind,  as  the  astonishing  result  of  the  contri- 
vance and  love  of  the  sacred  three,  in  whose 
name  they  baptized,  displayed  in  man's  redemption; 
and  these  they  pressed  mankind  to  accept,  by  de- 
claring how  freely  they  were  offered,  and  that  the 
vilest  of  our  apostate  race  might  make  them  hi& 
own,  by  receiving  them  with  a  cordial  faith:  and  ta 
eoniirm  their  belief  in  the  covenant,  and  encourage 
them  to  confide  in  the  mercy,  grace,  and  love  of 
God,  they  applied  to  believers  that  visible,  confirm- 
ing sign,  appointed  by  the  great  Redeemer.  What 
did  they  inculcate?  In  general,  obedience  to  that 
Supreme  Being,  whose  name  is  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost;  m  particular,  all  the  duties  of  the  co- 
venant of  grace,  as  Ave  find  them  specified,  recom- 
mended, and  enforced  in  the  gospel:  and  to  bind 
these  upon  the  consciences  of  mankind,  with  the 
greater  solemnity  and  force,  they  applied  to  theiii 
the  appointed,  visible,  confirming  sign*  Thus,  the 
heavenly  messengers  baptized  their  converts,  in  token 
of  those  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace  which  theiji 
exhibited f  and  of  those  duties  of  it  which  they  incul- 
cated*. 


140  LETTER  IX. 

Baptism,  then,  is  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace; 
and,  consequently,  a  seal  of  Abraham's  coyenant: 
because  they  are  in  substance  the  same.* 

On  the  supposition  of  these  being  hvo  covenants, 
it  may  be  objected,  that,  although  baptism  is  a  seal 
of  one,  it  cannot  be,  at  the  same  time,  a  seal  to 
both.  But  the  objection  is  unfounded;  because,  on 
the  very  same  ground,  it  might  be  contended,  that 
circumcision  could  not  have  been  a  seal  both  of  the 
Abrahamic,  and  of  the  Sinai-covenants:  whereas  it 
is  certain,  from  scripture  testimony,  that  it  did,  in 
fact,  perform  this  twofold  office.  And  if  circum- 
cision sealed  two  covenants,  so  widely  different,  why 
may  not  baptism  seal  two,  suhstantially  the  same; 
especially  when  it  is  considered,  that  the  church  is 
now  placed  under  the  operation  of  both? 

Let  me,  my  brethren,  recall  to  your  recollection 
the  important  points  established  in  the  two  last,  and 
in  a  preceding  letter,|  and  present  to  your  view 
their  combined  evidence. 

It  has  been  proved, 

1.  That  children  have  an  interest  in  Abraham's 
covenant: 

2.  That  children  are  members  of  Christ's  church: 
and 

3.  That  baptism  is  a  seal  of  this  covenant,  and 
a  token  of  church-membership. 

Now,  from  these  premises,  the  conclusion  fol- 
lows, with  the  evidence  of  a  demonstration,  That 
children  have  a  divine  rigut  to  baptism. 

*  See  Letter  VU.  page  109—115.  f  Letter  VL 


CIdldven's  Might  fo  Baplism.  1*1 

Jfere  is  Ihe  foundation  on  which  >ve  place  lliis 
j^reat  truth,  so  precious  to  those  who  understand 
the  nature  of  that  all-gracious  covenant,  which, 
from  the  day  of  its  estahlishnient,  with  our  father 
Ahrahani,  has  looked,  with  benignant  smiles,  upon 
the  offspring  of  God's  people.  A  truth,  not  to  be 
overturned  by  petty  objections,  springing  fi'om  con- 
tracted views  of  Jehovali's  dispensations  towards 
his  church.  A^'Iiile  the  foundation  remains,  the 
building  is  secure.  For,  to  allow  the  premises,  and 
deny  the  conclusion;  to  admit  the  covenant-interest, 
and  church-membership  of  children,  and  dispute 
their  right  to  the  token  of  the  ane,  and  seal  of  the 
other;  would  hjB  utterly  inconsistent.  These  things 
are  inseparably  connected,  and  must  exist  or  perish 
together:  and,  before  children  can  be  deprived  of 
their  right  to  baptism,  it  must  be  proved,  that  God 
has  excluded  them  from  his  church,  and  cast  them 
out  of  his  covenant.  But  to  prove  this,  it  may,  I 
think,  in  view  of  the  evidence  submitted  in  these 
letters,  be,  without  presumption,  pronounced,  not 
only  impracticable,  but  impossihle. 

I  close  this  letter,  by  deducing  from  what  has 
been  said,  a  few  observations  on  the  nature  of  bap- 
tism. 

In  all  cases,  whether  applied  to  adults,  or  to  in- 
fants, baptism  is  a  seal  of  the  covenant.  It  is  wrong 
to  consider  it  on  God's  part,  as  sealing  the  recipi- 
ent's faith,  or,  in  other  words,  as  certifying  him 
that  be  is  a  true  Ijelieyer.     The  ordinance  may  m- 


14^  BETTER    IX. 

divedhf  serve  to  strengthen  a  person's  persuasioa 
that  he  has  a  true  faith,  hy  proving  the  means  of 
exciting  this  grace  into  more  vigorous  exercise:  but, 
then,  let  it  be  observed,  liis  evidence  is  derived,  not 
from  the  ordinance,  but  from  the  spiritual  exercises 
of  his  own  heart.  He  concludes  himself  to  be  a  be- 
liever, not  because  he  has  been  baptized,  but  be- 
cause he  feels  in  himself,  the  holy  workings  of  a 
living  faith.  Baptism  was  not  given  by  our  Lord  to 
his  church  to  be  a  seal  of  faith  in  any.  The  question 
whether  we  are  believers  or  not,  must  be  decided  by 
other  evidence.  He  gave  baptism  simply  as  a  seal 
of  his  covenant;  both  to  assure  us  of  the  faithful- 
ness of  his  promises,  and  to  impress,  the  more  deeply 
on  our  hearts,  a  sense  of  the  duties  which  we  owe 
to  our  covenant-God. 

Hence  we  see,  that,  in  all  cases,  baptism  seals 
the  truth.  It  can  never  be  affixed  to  a  falsehood; 
because  it  is  always  affixed  to  Jehovah's  covenant, 
which  contains  nothing  but  truth.  Viewed  in  this, 
its  proper,  light,  we  feel  no  difficulty  in  explaining 
its  import.  It  certifies  the  subject,  that  he  is  in 
covenant  with  God;  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  vi- 
sible church;  that  Jehovah  will  certainly  fulfil  his 
covenant-engagements.  It  certifies,  that  covenant- 
obligations  are  on  the  person  baptized;  that  he  is 
bound  to  repent  of  his  sins,  believe  in  Christ,  and 
walk  uprightly  before  God:  and  it  certifies,  that  if 
he,  by  the  aids  of  divine  grace,  fulfil  these  duties, 
Jehovah  will  certainly  be  his  God,  in  the  highest 


Vhildren^s  Bight  to  Bnptisiiu  143 

sense  of  his  promise;  by  forj^iving  liis  sins,  justifying 
him  freely  thioiigh  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
sanctifying  him  by  his  Spirit,  and  finally  receiving 
him  to  glory.  All  this  it  certifies;  because  all  this 
is  included  in  that  covenant  >vhich  it,  as  a  seal, 
confirms. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  Did  not  Abraham  receive 
circumcision  as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith? 
Did  it  not  certify  him,  that  he  Avas  a  justified  per- 
son and  a  true  believer?  The  apostle's  phrase  to 
which  these  questions  refer,  seems  to  be  greatly 
misunderstood  by  some.  The  sacred  ^vriter,  I  ap- 
prehend, does  not  intend  to  teach  us,  that  circum- 
cision was  given  to  the  patriarch  as  a  seal  of  his 
faUhi  and  as  such  to  certify  him  directly  that  he 
was  a  true  believer:  for,  you  will  observe,  he  does 
not  say,  he  received  it  as  a  seal  of  his  faith,  but 
he  received  it  as  a  seal  of  the  righteousivess  of  the 
faith  ivhich  he  had.  Between  these  forms  of  ex- 
pression, there  is  a  manifest  ditterence. 

If  we  recur  to  Moses'  account  of  the  original 
institution  of  circumcision,  we  shall  find  not  the 
slightest  intimation  given  that  it  was  proposed  to 
the  patriarch  as  a  stal  of  his  faith.  It  was  pre- 
sented to  him  simply  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant  then 
made  with  him:  *'  It  shall  be  a  token,''  says  God, 
«<  of  the  covenant  hclwixt  me  and  thee,''  The  trans- 
action of  that  memorable  day,  no  doubt,  served  to 
confirm  Abraham  In  the  persuasion  ol"  his  being  a 
true  believer,    lie  was  then  taken  into  a  covenant 


14i  LETTER   IX. 

with  Almighty  God,  formally  made  and  ratified  by 
a  visible  sign;  and,  in  that  covenant,  he  was  consti- 
tuted father  of  an  innumerable  spiritual  seed,  for 
the  great  purpose  of  transmitting  to  them  the  bless- 
ings of  salvation.  Such  was  the  honour  conferred 
upon  him.  From  these  distinguishing  favours  of 
Jehovah,  he  might,  and  certainly  did,  derive  addi- 
tional assurance  of  his  having  the  grace  of  faith,  and 
consequent  reconciliation  with  God.  But  of  this 
fact,  which  might  be  thus  inferred,  circumcision 
was  not  intended  to  be  the  seal. 

How,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  was  this  sign  to 
Abraham,  **  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had?*'  The  question  has  already  been  an- 
swered. It  sealed  the  hlessing  to  him,  by  sealing 
the  covenant  which  contained  it.  This  covenant  ex- 
hibited, among  other  benefits,  the  righteousness  of 
faith,  or,  in  other  words,  justification  by  faith  in 
the  righteousness  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ:  it  en- 
gaged, that  Abraham  and  all  true  believers  should 
be  made  righteous,  by  this  glorious  righteousness 
of  Christ,  received  by  faith.  This  truth,  this  be- 
nefit, this  covenant-engagement,  circumcision  sealed: 
and,  thus,  it  was  to  Abraham  **  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  the  failh  which  he  had." 

This  construction  of  the  apostlc*s  phrase,  evi- 
dently accords  with  the  scope  of  his  reasoning  in 
the  context.  He  is  proving  the  great  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith,  without  works.  In  confirma- 
tion of  it,  he  adduces  the  case  of  Abraham,  and 


ChiUren^s  Bight  to  Baptism,  145 

shows  that  he  was  justified  in  this  way:  and  to  evince 
that  the  benefit  of  justification  did  not  belong  ex- 
clusively to  his  natural  descendants,  he  shows  that 
Abraham  had  received  it  when  uncircumcised,  and 
that  circumcision  was  given  to  him,  not  to  intro- 
duce a  new,  but  to  confirm  the  old,  method  of  sal- 
vation: *<  for  the  promise,"  or  covenant',  which  cir- 
cumcision sealed,  "  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of 
the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed, 
through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteousness 

OF  FAITH."* 

Hence,  it  appears  that  the  import  of  circumci- 
sion was  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed  tlie  same:  be- 
ing to  both  a  token  of  the  covenant,  a  seal  of  all  its 
engagements  and  ohligations,  and  especially  a  seal 
of  the  great  docirine  or  promise  of  justification  hij 
faith,  or,  to  use  the  apostle's  words,  by  the  right- 
eonsness  of  faith,^'  It  exhibited  to  all  this  great 
blessing:  it  certified  all,  that  God  Mould  justify 
every  true  believer  througli  the  merits  of  Christ. 

Baptism,  being  substituted  for  circumcision,  ex- 
hibits the  same  bU'ssing;  it  certifies  the  same  truth; 
it  confirms  the  same  covenant-engagements  and  ob- 
ligations: it  is  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith 
to  every  baptized  person. 

We,  therefore,  repeat  it:  In  no  case  can  baptism, 
considered  as  God's  seal,  be  a  seal  to  a  falsehood. 
It  may  be  erroneously  applied;  it  may  be  adminis- 

*  Rom.  iv.  13.  See  page  74. 


146  liETTER   X. 

tered,  through  mistake,  to  persons  not  entided  to  it: 
but  it  always  seals  the  truth;  because  it  is  always 
the  seal  of  God's  covenant,  the  engagements  and 
promises  of  which  are  **  true  and  righteous  alto- 
gether." 

Viewing  baptism  in  this  light,  it  is  evident  that 
no  objection  against  its  application  to  infants,  can 
be  derived  from  the  nature  of  the  truth  and  promi- 
ses which  it  certilies. 

The  language  of  this  Christian  rite  is  the  same 
to  every  recipient,  whether  adult  or  infant:  Jeho- 
yah  justifies,  through  the  merits  of  his  Son,  every 
true  believer,  and  becomes  to  him  a  God  in  the  su- 
bliniest  sense  of  his  covenant-promise. 


LETTER  X. 

Objections  answered.  1.  Incapacity  of  chil- 
dren.— 2,  Silence  of  the  JV'eic?  Testament. — 
3.  Source  of  proof  remote. 

Christian  Brethren, 

In  the  course  of  our  discussion,  several  im- 
portant objections  have  been  answered.  There  arc 
others  on  which  great  dependence  is  placed,  by  those 
who  controvert  the  right  of  infants,  and  condemn  the 


Objections  Answered,  147 

application  of  baptism  to  them  as  an  unscriptural 
practice.  Tlie  principal  of  these  will  now  be  ex- 
amined. 

1.  An  objection,  of  a  plausible  nature,  is  derived 
from  the  incapacity  of  children  to  act  in  this  ordi- 
nance. *  Infants,'  say  our  opponents,  *  cannot  repent, 
nor  exercise  faith;  how  absurd,  then,  to  apply  to 
them  a  rite  which  requires  the  performance  of  these 
sacred  duties?' 

Wereply,  that  if,  on  account  of  the  incapacity 
of  infants,  their  baptism  is  absurd,  for  the  same 
reason  their  circumcision  must  have  been  absurd; 
because  the  former  is  now  the  token  of  that  very 
covenant,  and  the  seal  of  those  very  duties,  which 
the  latierf  while  in  use,  signified  and  sealed.  The 
incapacity  of  infants  under  the  Jewish  economy, 
was  the  same  as  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 
No  one  will  pretend  that  they  could  perform  duties 
thetif  for  which  they  are  incompetent  now.  Are  our 
tender  offspring  unconscious  of  what  is  done  to 
them,  when  we  dedicate  tliem  to  God  in  baptism? 
Equally  unconscious  were  Jewish  infants,  when  de- 
dicated to  him  by  circumcision.  Are  our  children 
unable  to  accept  of  covenant-mercy?  So  were  Jew- 
ish children.  Are  our  infants  incapable  of  perform- 
ing the  great  duties  of  repentance,  faith,  and  new 
obedience,  imposed  by  the  covenant,  and  confirmed 
by  baptism?  Circumcised  infants  were  under  the 
same  obligations,  and  as  incapable  of  doing  these 
momentous  duties.     We,  therefore,  conclude,  that, 


144  JiETTER   X. 

if  the  circumcision  of  children  was  not  absurd,  then 
their  baptism  is  not  absurd;  and  that,  if  the  appli- 
cation of  the  ancient  covenant-token  to  them,  was 
a  reasonable  service,  then  the  application  of  the 
new  covenant-token  must  be  a  reasonable  service. 

"  But,"  it  will  be  said,  "  faith  is  required  in  or- 
der to  baptism."  This  we  admit  to  be  true  with  re- 
gard to  adults;  but  we  deny  it  with  respect  to  in- 
fants.  The  rule  for  applying  the  covenant-token, 
is  the  same  under  the  Christian,  as  it  was  under  the 
Jewish,  dispensation.  Faith  is  now  the  door  by 
which  the  heathen  enter  into  Abraham's  covenant; 
and,  as  this  covenant  is  precisely  what  it  ever  was, 
faith  must  always  have  been  the  door  of  admission 
to  adults.^  Of  adults,  then,  faith  was  required  in 
order  to  circumcision:  but  was  this  qualification  re- 
quired, under  the  Jewish  economy,  from  infants  in 
order  to  their  being  ranked  among  the  patriarch's 
seed?  Every  body  acquainted  with  the  subject  knows 
and  admits,  that  it  was  not;  and  that  they  entered 
with  their  parents  into  the  church  of  God,  and  re- 
ceived the  sign  of  circumcision.  Why,  then,  should 
we  exact  from  infants  ^ow,  what  was  not  formerly 
exacted?  Why  refuse  to  apply  to  them  baptismal 
water,  because  they  are  incapable  of  performing  an 
act,  which  is  demanded,  not  from  them,  but  from 
adults,  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  reception  of  this 
Christian  rite? 

*  See  Witsins  concerning  proselytes,  p.  3G3,  vol.  ili. 


Objections  Jlnsivered.  149 

This  is  perfectly  tenable.  But  in  order  to  sup- 
port our  conclusion  with  still  greater  evidence,  let 
us  take  ground  which  Done  can  dispute.  It  is  ad- 
mitted, that  before  an  adult  heathen  could  be  cir- 
cumcised and  received  into  the  Jewish  church,  it 
was  required  of  him  to  renounce  idolatry,  and  pro- 
fess himself  a  worshipper  of  the  God  of  Israel. 
Less  than  this,  all  must  confess,  could  not  have 
been  exacted,  with  any  consistency  with  the  nature 
of  Abraham's  covenant.  But  were  Gentile-children 
capable  of  making  this  renunciation,  and  this  pro- 
fession? or  were  these  demanded  from  them  as  pre- 
requisites to  an  interest  in  the  covenant,  and  union 
with  the  church?  To  assert  the  latter  would  be 
grossly  false;  and  to  maintain  the  former  would  be 
an  offence  against  common  sense.  Here,  then,  is 
decisive  evidence  that,  under  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion, something  was  demanded  of  adults  as  indis- 
pensably necessary  to  the  reception  of  circumcision, 
when  nothing  was  required  of  infants  to  entitle  them 
to  it,  except  the  covenant-right  of  their  parents. 
Thus  stands  the  matter  under  the  Christian  econo- 
my. Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is  necessary  to  give  an 
adult  a  just  claim  to  baptism;  but  it  were  absurd  to 
exact  this  from  new-born  children.  They  now  ac- 
quire a  right  to  the  token  of  the  covenant,  just  as 
they  did  formerly, — through  their  parents.  And  it 
is  as  unjust  to  demand  from  them  faith,  as  a  neces- 
sary qualification  for  this  Christian  rite,  because  it 
is  required  as  such  from  adultsj  as  it  would  have 

o  2 


150  LETTEK  X. 

been/iii  the  Jewish  church,  to  refuse  to  circumcise 
them,  until  they  made  a  renunciation  of  idolatry,, 
and  a  profession  of  being  worshippers  of  Jehovah, 
because  these  were  the  requisite  qualifications  in 
their  parents. 

The  very  passage  on  which  our  opponents  take 
their  stand,  furnishes  additional  proof  in  favour  of 
our  position.  The  text  is  this:  "  He  that  helieroethf 
and  is  haptixed,  shall  he  saved;  hut  he  that  helieveth 
not  shall  he  damned,^'^  Here,  say  they,  faith  is 
demanded  as  a  necessary  prerequisite  to  baptism. 
But  how  do  they  prove  this  round  assertion?  The 
passage  itself  does  not  say,  that  haptism  shall  he  ap- 
plied to  none  hut  helievers;  but  only,  *<  He  that  he- 
lieveth,  and  is  haptizedf  shall  he  saved,^'  Tlie  differ- 
ence between  these  two  forms  of  expression,  is  great 
and  manifest.  How,  then,  I  repeat  it,  do  our  oppo- 
nents attempt  to  prove  their  position?  By  inference! 
In  this  text  mention  is  made,  first,  o^  faith,  and  then, 
of  haptism;  the  latter,  in  the  order  of  arrangement, 
following  the  former:  hence,  tliey  conclude,  that 
baptism  in  the  administration,  should  always  follow 
faith  in  the  recipient.  TIius,  in  laying  down  one 
rule,  they  are  compelled  to  violate  another,  and  a 
favourite  too,  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  reason  on  the 
subject  of  a  positive  ordinance!  But,  granting  them 
the  liberty  of  reasoning,  although  they  deny  it  to 
us,  let  us  try  the  soundness  of  the  rule  deduced  from 
this  text. 

*  Mark  xvl.  16. 


Ohjections  Ansxvered.  1 51 

Look  again,  my  brethren,  at  the  passage,  and 
you  will  see  believing  standing  before,  not  only  bap- 
tism, but  also  salvation.  If,  therefore,  it  be  cor- 
rect to  conclude,  from  this  arrangement,  that  none 
may  be  baptized  but  those  >vho  believe;  it  must 
likewise  be  correct,  for  the  same  reason,  to  con- 
clude, that  none  can  be  saved  but  tliose  who  believe. 
What,  then,  becomes  of  all  who  die  in  infancy?  They 
cannot  exercise  faith.    Are  they  lost? 

Read  once  more  this  text,  and  you  will  see  bap- 
tism placed,  in  order,  before  salvation.  It  follows, 
therefore,  according  to  the  reasoning  of  our  oppo- 
nents, that  none  can  be  saved,  unless  they  be  bap- 
tized. Then  all  belonging  to  that  society  of  Chris- 
tians who  renounce  baptism,  perish!  i^nd  faith  itself 
cannot  save  them!  And  what  is  still  more  deplora- 
ble, this  reasoning  will  prove  fatal  to  the  mass  of 
professing  Christians;  for  they  are  unbaptizcd,  if 
immersion  be,  as  our  brethren  say,  the  only  valid 
mode  of  administering  this  sacred  rite!  What  con- 
sequences, fairly  deducible  from  the  principle,  on 
which  the  rule  we  combat  is  founded! 

You  will  not,  my  brethren,  imagine  that  T  can, 
for  a  moment,  believe,  that  our  opponents  carry  their 
principle  so  far,  as  to  adopt  these  consequences  as 
articles  of  their  creed.  My  object  has  been  to  prove 
the  rule,  which  is  connected  with  such  terrible  re- 
sults, to  be  erroneous  and  absurd.  In  fact,  merely 
from  the  order  in  which  the  particulars,  in  this  text, 
are  distributed,  we  cannot,  with  certainty,  conclude 


152  iETTEU   X. 

even  that  faith  is  a  requisite  qualification  for  adult 
baptism.  This  we  learn  from  other  parts  of  holy 
scripture. 

Further:  Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  very  ad- 
vocates of  this  rule  are  compelled  to  depart  from 
the  literal  meaning  of  the  passage  on  which  it  is 
founded.  Why  do  they  baptize  an  adult  person? 
Because  they  know  him  to  be  a  true  believer?  This, 
it  is  impossible  for  tliem  to  know  with  certainty, 
without  an  immediate  revelation  from  heaven.  God 
alone  can  search  the  heart.  Tliey,  as  the  apostles 
of  our  Lord  did,  must  administer  the  ordinance  on 
a  credible  profession  of  faith:  and,  hence,  as  the 
apostles,  they  are  liable  to  be  deceived  by  a  false 
profession.  Alas!  how  many  lamentable  proofs  have 
occurred  among  that,  as  well  as  other  denomina- 
tions, to  show  how  easy  it  is  for  dishonest  men  to 
impose  on  the  ministers  of  Christ!  It  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  accept  of  a  credible  profession  of  faith, 
as  sufficient  to  entitle  to  baptism^  because  if  this 
were  rejected,  and  certain  evidence  of  grace  re- 
quired, the  ordinance  would  never  be  administered; 
owing  to  the  utter  incapacity  of  mortals  to  discover 
such  evidence,  and  act  under  such  a  rule.  From 
the  nature  of  the  case,  we  and  others  are  compelled 
to  judge  of  the  state  of  applicants  for  baptism  by 
external  evidence;  and  to  admit  them  to  it,  on  a 
profession  of  religion  supported  by  a  consistent  con- 
duct. This  is  our  rule;  and  it  a  gox)d  and  scriptural 
rule. 


Objections  Ansxvercd.  153 

But  observe,  my  brethren,  the  text  under  consi- 
deration speaks,  not  o^  o.  prof  ess  ion  of  faith,  but  of 
real  faith.  It  does  not  say,  He  that  professes  to 
believe,  but  he  that  beliereth,  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved.  Evidently,  then,  our  opponents  depart, 
in  administering  baptism,  from  the  literal  sense  of 
this  passage,  on  wJiich  they  ground  a  rule  to  ex- 
clude infants  from  an  important  privilege.  And 
Avhat  is  still  more  remarkable,  they  take  this  liberty 
^ith  a  text,  which,  in  reference  to  adults  and  their 
salvation,  will  admit  of  no  deviation  from  its  strict 
and  proper  meaning:  for  it  is  certain,  that,  although 
a  profession  of  faith  is,  and  must  necessarily  be, 
accepted,  as  sufficient  to  entitle  a  person,  in  the 
view  of  man,  to  baptism,  yet  nothing  less  than  a 
real  and  living  faith  can  save  his  soul.  It  will  not, 
however,  follow,  that,  in  reference  to  this  ordi- 
nance, we  are  to  interpret  the  text  in  the  same  ri- 
gorous way,  as  if  baptism  were  absolutely  necessary 
to  salvation;  because  our  Saviour  himself  guards 
against  this  construction,  by  leaving  out  mention  of 
baptism  in  the  close:  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned.'^ 

On  the  whole,  from  this  passage,  as  already 
intimated,  no  general  rule,  in  respect  to  qualifica- 
tions for  baptism,  to  direct  the  conduct  of  those  who 
administer  it,  can  be  deduced.  We  can  only  infer, 
that,  as  our  Lord  has  spoken  of  this  ordinance  in 
such  solemn  connexion  with  faith  and  salvation, 
none  should  venture  to  make  light  of  it;  but  all 


154  LETTER  X. 

should  seek  the  application  of  it  to  themselves  ia  a 
due  and  scriptural  manner. 

To  set  the  matter  in  clearer  light,  it  may  be  ob- 
served, that  before  the  abolition  of  circumcision,  it 
might,  with  truth  and  propriety,  have  been  said, 
"  He  that  believeth,"  and  is  circumcised,  *<  shall  be 
saved."  But  would  this  mode  of  expression  have 
established  it  as  a  rule,  that  infants  were  not  to  be 
impressed  with  the  covenant-sign,  or  that  adminis- 
trators of  it  could  not  act,  unless  they  certainly 
kn»w  the  intended  subject  to  be  a  true  believer? 
Unquestionably  not.  Such  a  declaration  would  have 
produced  no  alteration  in  existing  rules  relative  to 
circumcision.  To  learn,  therefore,  our  Lord's  will 
in  regard  to  the  application  of  baptism,  we  must 
consult  other  passages  of  his  statute-book,  and  the 
conduct  of  his  apostles,  in  connexion  with  the  uni- 
form practice  of  his  church,  under  the  ancient  eco- 
nomy, in  applying  the  token  of  his  covenant. 

Finally:  In  reply  to  this  objection,  it  may  be 
justly  observed,  that  it  is,  not  only  unfounded,  but 
rash;  because,  as  we  have  seen,  it  applies  with 
equal  force  against  infant  circumcision  which  was 
expressly  ordered  by  iufinite  wisdom.  Indeed,  if 
the  principle  on  which  it  depends,  were  correct,  it 
would  deprive  children  of  membership  in  all  other 
societies,  as  well  as  of  fellowship  in  the  church  of 
God.  Duties  certainly  result  from  the  relations, 
which  members  of  a  family  and  members  of  a  civil 
community,  sustain  to  each  other;  duties,  which  in- 


Ohjeetions  Anstvered,  153 

fants  are  as  incapable  of  performing;,  as  they  are  thai 
of  faith:  and,  therefore,  it  will  follow  that,  if,  on 
account  of  their  incapacity  to  do  this  great  duty, 
they  cannot  be  received  as  members  of  the  church, 
nor  be  impressed  with  the  sign  of  its  fellowship; 
they  ought  not  to  be  accounted  members  of  any  so- 
ciety, the  general  duties  of  which  they  are  unable 
to  perform.  IIow  absurd  would  this  be!  Infants, 
the  moment  they  come  into  the  world,  are  members 
of  a  family,  and  citizens  of  a  commonwealth,  as 
really  as  adult  persons:  and  although,  for  the  pre- 
sent, th(^y  can  make  no  return  in  gratitude,  or  in 
doing  any  other  duty,  yet  they  have  an  indisputable 
claim  to  the  guardian  care  and  watchful  protection 
of  both  societies,  natural  and  civil.  In  like  man- 
ner, infants  are,  from  their  birth,  members  of  the 
church,  and  entitled  to  baptism,  the  appointed  to- 
ken of  her  fellowship.  This  objection,  then,  is  ut- 
terly groundless. 

2.  An  objection  against  infant  baptism,  is  drawn 
from  the  supposed  silence  of  the  New  Testament  on 
the  subject.  Taking  this  fact  for  granted,  it  is 
asked,  «<  If  children  have  a  right  to  be  admitted  to 
baptism,  why  do  we  not  find  it  expressly  recognised 
in  the  inspired  writings?  Surely,  their  admission 
must  be  unwarrantable,  until  it  can  be  justified  by 
some  proof  that  the  practice  prevailed  in  apostolic 
ehurches. 

In  reply  to  this  objection,  we  contend  that,  if 
the  Ne^*^  Testament  be  silent  w  ith  respect  to  infant 


156  LETTER  X. 

baptism,  this  silence  makes  in  favour  of  our  senti- 
ment and  practice.  Let  it  be  recollected,  that  chil- 
dren were,  by  express  direction  of  the  Most  High, 
admitted  members  of  his  church,  and  had  applied 
to  them  the  token  of  his  covenant,  to  seal  the  rela- 
tions which  they  sustained  to  him,  and  to  his  peo- 
ple: let  it  be  recollected,  that  they  continued  to  en- 
joy this  distinguishing  privilege,  from  the  time  of 
Abraham  to  that  of  our  Lord,  none  venturing  to 
call  in  question  a  right  so  explicitly  granted  to  them 
by  divine  authority:  and  let  it  be  also  recollected, 
that  when  a  Pagan  became  a  convert  to  the  Jewish 
religion,  both  he  and  his  children  were  circumcised 
in  token  of  their  being  in  covenant  with  God,  and 
members  of  his  church.  Now,  it  must  be  conceded, 
that  no  human  power  was  competent  to  deprive 
children  of  their  covenunt-privilege;  and  that,  if  it 
have  not  been  revoked  by  our  Sovereign  Lord,  from 
whom  it  was  received,  it  must  remain  in  iheir  pos- 
session as  an  inalienable  inheritance.  Has  he  de- 
clared such  a  revocation?  Search  the  Bible,  from 
beginning  to  end,  and  you  will  not  find  a  single  pas- 
sage, certifying  it  to  his  church  to  be  his  will,  that 
children  should  no  longer  sustain  their  ancient  co- 
venant-relation to  his  Divine  Majesty. 

AVe  are  required  to  produce  an  express  command 
for  the  baptism  of  infants.  This  demand  we  con- 
tend to  be  highly  unreasonable:  and,  with  great  pro- 
priety, retorting  it  upon  our  opponents,  gay  to  ihem. 
Produce  you  an  expreiss  command  for  casting  infants 


Objections  JlnswereiL  157 

©ut  of  the  cliurcli,  and  denying  them  baptism.    For 
we  take  it  to  he  a  position  which  cannot  be  fairly 
refuted.  That,  unless  our  Supreme  Lord  have  plain- 
ly signified  it  to  be  his  will,  it  would  be  unjust  to 
children,  as  well  as  presumptuous  opposition  to  es- 
tablished order  in  our  Master's  house,  to  deprive 
them  of  their  chartered  right,  and  expel  them  from 
his  family.     How  unreasonable,  then,  to  maintain 
the  silence  of  the  New  Testament  to  be  a  sufficient 
warrant,  for  taking  away  from  them  an  important 
privilege,  enjoyed  through  a  long  succession  of  ages! 
Material  changes  have  been  made  in  God's  go- 
vernment over  his  church,  and  in  the  prescribed 
forms  of  her  worship.    The  Sinai-covenant  has  pas- 
sed away,  and  circumcision  been  abolished.    How 
were  these  alterations  effected?  How  was  Jehovah's 
will,  relative  to  these  important  points,  made  known 
to  his  church?  ^yihe  silence  of  the  New  Testament? 
By  no  means.    He  has  signified  his  pleasure  plainly 
and  fully.     Circumcision  was  abolished  by  positive 
I)recept;  and,  although  intimations  had  been  given 
in  the  Old  Testament,  that  the  Levitical  priesthood, 
and  the  whole  economy  established  by  the  Sinai-co- 
venant, were  of  a  temporary  nature,  and  designed 
to  last  only  till  they  ushered  into  the  world  the  great 
High  Priest  of  our  profession,  and  introduced  his 
better  dispensation;  yet  the  church  was  not  left  to 
educe  the  truth  from  these  intimations:  An  inspired 
apostle  was  directed  to  collect  the  evidence,  and,  by 
his  authority,  to  render  the  conclusion  resulting 


158  LETTER  X. 

from  it  certain.  So  plainly  has  our  Lord  revealed 
his  will  on  these  points.  Dare  we,  then,  depr.ve 
children  of  their  ancient  inheritance,  without  a  de- 
claration of  his  will  equally  plain  and  express?  Who 
can  helieve  the  silence  of  the  New  Testament,  with 
respect  to  their  haptism,  to  he  sufficient  to  autho- 
rize the  conclusion,  that  our  Master  has  taken  from 
them  a  privilege  granted  by  himself,  and  enjoyed  by 
them  during  many  ages? 

*«But  the  apostles,"  it  maybe  said,  <« taught 
the  church,  that  children  were  no  longer  to  be  re- 
cognised as  her  members."  Where  is  the  proof? 
Is  this,  too,  found  in  the  silence  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment? The  Mosaic  economy  was  vacated  by  express 
precept;  yet  how  hard  Wtis  it  to  divorce  the  hearts 
of  Jewish  converts  from  it,  although  a  yoke  which 
they  could  not  bear.  W  hat  a  noise  the  change  ex- 
cited! How  obstinately  did  the  prejudices  of  educa- 
tion rise  in  opposition  to  apostolic  authority!  Cir- 
cumcision was  abolished;  but  what  a  length  of  time 
was  required  to  wean  Jewish  converts  from  this 
painful  rite!  and  how  had  the  apostles  to  exert  their 
authority  to  prevent  the  imposition  of  it  on  Gentile- 
Christians!  But,  with  respect  to  the  disfranchise- 
ment of  children,  no  difficulty  was  experienced. 
The  Jews,  who  had  been  long  accustomed  to  see 
them  impressed  with  the  seal  of  God's  covenant, 
numbered  among  his  people,  and  regarded  as  mem- 
bers of  his  church;  saw  them  deprived  of  their  fair- 
est inheritance,  refused  the  sign  of  the  covenant^ 


Objections  Answered.  159 

and  treated  as  strangers  to  it,  and  aliens  from  the 
eonmioiiwealtli  of  Israel,  without  murmuiing,  and 
without  feeling  a  shock  given  to  their  prejudices! 
So  easily  was  this  great  revolution  in  the  church 
effected;  a  revolution  in  opposition  to  parental  af- 
fection, and  the  tenderest  feelings  of  the   human 
heart!  So   easily,  that  it  w  as   unnecessary  for  the 
apostles  to  record  a  single  word  on  the  abolition  of 
children's  covenant-privileges!  They  met  with  vio- 
lent and  lasting  opposition  in  setting  aside  the  rites 
of  Moses,  and  the  use  of  circumcision;  so  that  they 
had  to  declare,  explicitly  and  often,  Jehovah's  will 
on  these  subjects;  hut,  with  respect  to  cutting  oft* 
children  from  the  people  of  God,  and  denying  them 
the  privilege  of  baptism,  they  found  prejudices  fos- 
tered by  education  and  daily  practice,  prejudices 
that  founded  themselves  on  divine  authority;  so  pli- 
ant, so  yielding,  as  to  render  it  unnecessary  to  guard 
the  church,  by  a  written  document,  against  suppo- 
sing that  children  were  to  be  treated  under  the 
Christian  economy,  as  they  had  been  under  the  Jew- 
ish, and  to  continue  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  an- 
cient privileges!  The  silence  of  the  New  Testament, 
(if  it  be  silent,)   with  respect  to   infant-baptism, 
makes,  it  is  evident,  strongly  in  favour  of  our  sen- 
timent and  practice;  and  justifies  us  in  sealing  with 
this  ordinance  the  children  of  believing  parents,  as 
members  of  the  Christian  church. 

Thus  far,  I  have  reasoned  on  the  supposition  of 
tins  objection  being  founded  on  fact.     I  shall  new 


160  I»ETTER   X. 

endeavour  to  show,  that  the  New  Testament  is  B«t 
silent  with  respect  to  infant-baptism,  and,  conse- 
quently, that  the  objection  is  entirely  groundless. 
We  are  ready  to  concede,  no  passage  can  be  produ- 
ced from  the  inspired  writers,  saying,  in  so  many 
words.  Baptize  infants  as  well  as  adults.  But  be- 
cause this,  or  a  like  form  of  words,  is  not  used  by 
them,  shall  we  conclude  they  are  entirely  silent  on 
the  subject;  and,  because  our  heavenly  Lawgiver 
has  not  chosen  to  employ  terms  which  human  wis- 
dom might  dictate,  he  has  not  signified  his  will  with 
respect  to  the  privileges  of  children  under  the 
Christian  dispensation?  This  would  be  most  unrea- 
sonable and  unwarrantable.  For,  certainly,  he  has 
more  ways  than  one  in  which  to  communicate  his 
sovereign  pleasure;  and  it  is  our  duty,  as  obedient 
subjects,  to  endeavour  to  learn  his  will,  however 
made  known;  and  to  obey  it  when  revealed  in  one 
form,  as  well  as  when  revealed  in  another. 

Suppose  a  king  were,  by  a  particular  instrument 
of  writing,  to  declare  who  should  be  acknowledged 
as  citizens  of  a  distant  province,  and  to  set  up  a 
certain  form  of  government  over  them;  suppose  this 
king,  many  years  after,  should  be  induced,  from 
kind  regard  to  his  subjects,  and  with  a  view  to  their 
benefit,  to  change  the  form  of  his  government;  and 
suppose  that,  at  the  same  time,  he  should  declare 
the  instrument  relative  to  citizenship  to  be  unre- 
pealed: would  it  not  be  false  in  any  to  pretend,  that 
kis  majesty  was  silent  with  respect  to  a  cei^tain 


Objections  tlnswered.  161 

class  of  citizens  under  his  former  goyernment? 
Would  not  all  reasonable  persons  admit  the  will  of 
their  sovereign  to  be  signified  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness, to  determine  that  no  class  of  his  subjects  was 
disfranchised,  and  that  no  alteration  with  respect 
to  citizenship  was  effected,  by  the  change  of  his 
government? 

The  glorious  King  of  Zion  has  done  all  this.  In 
this  w  ay  has  he  made  known  his  pleasure  in  regard 
to  children.  The  covenant  of  Abraham  is  the  in- 
strument declaring  the  right  of  citizenship,  and  as- 
certaining who  should  be  considered  as  members  of 
God's  church.  The  Mosaic  economy  was  the  go- 
vernment once  set  up  by  his  authority  over  this  dis- 
tant province  of  his  universal  empire;  which,  after 
continuing  many  ages,  was  exchanged  for  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation;  a  new  and  better  form  of  govern- 
ment, designed,  not  to  abridge,  but  to  increase  the 
privileges  and  happiness  of  his  subjects.  To  secure 
the  rights  of  every  class  of  his  citizens,  and  prevent 
the  Exclusion  of  infants  from  his  church,  our  sove- 
reign Lord  has  taught  us  expressly  that  the  Abra- 
hamic  constitution  is  still  in  force,  and  that,  in  this 
covenant,  his  servant  was  constitoted  father  of  all 
the  faithful,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  Moreover, 
we  are  informed  in  sacred  writ,  that  baptism  has 
come  in  place  of  circumcision,  and  is  the  Christian 
seal  of  that  very  covenant  in  which  children  had, 
from  the  beginning,  and  still  have,  an  interest.  We 
conclude,  therefore,  that  the  New  Testament  is  not 

P2 


t€2  LETTER    X. 

silent  with  respect  to  infant  baptism.  Much  addi- 
tional evidence,  in  favour  of  this  conclusion,  will 
appear,  when  we  come  to  reply  to  the  objection, 
that  the  apostolic  writings  contain  neither  express 
mention  of  children  having  been  baptized  by  the 
founders  of  the  Christian  church,  nor  any  positive 
precept  enjoining  their  baptism.  But,  previously 
to  taking  up  tliat  objection,  we  choose  to  answer  an 
intermediate  one. — It  is  objected, 

2.  <«That  the  source  of  our  proof  is  remote. 
Why  go,  say  our  opponents,  to  the  Old,  to  learn 
how  to  apply  an  ordinance  belonging  to  the  New, 
Testament?  Can  that  application  of  it  be  correct, 
the  justification  of  which  makes  it  necessary  to  tra- 
vel as  far  back  into  past  ages  as  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham?" 

We  reply,  that  the  best  foundation  for  the  sup- 
port of  any  truth,  is  that  which  is  formed  by  first 
principles.  Aware  of  this,  an  inspired  writer,  treat- 
ing of  human  depravity,  contents  not  himself  with 
tollecting  the  proofs  of  his  doctrine  arising  from 
the  actual  state  of  mankind  in  his  own  day,  but  as- 
cends to  the  beginning  of  the  world;  and  there,  in 
Paradise,  lays  open  the  original  source  of  the  guilt 
and  sinfulness  of  our  race,  by  showing  that  by  one 
man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  through  the  viola- 
tion of  that  gracious  covenant  which  the  Almighty 
condescended  to  make  with  Adam,  our  first  parent, 
as  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  all  his 
posterity.*     In  confirmation  of  that  fundamental 

•  Rom.  V.  13—21. 


Objections  tlnswered.  16S 

doctrine  of  the  gospel,  jiistiiicatiou  by  faith  without 
works,  the  same  sacred  writer  traces  up  the  sub- 
ject in  debate  to  the  time  of  Abraham,  and  esta- 
blishes the  invaluable  truth  by  evincing,  that  this 
patriarch,  the  friend  or  God,  was  justified  in 
this  free  and  gracious  manner.^  Now,  it  is  pre- 
sumed, no  one  who  has  due  regard  for  apostolic  au- 
thority and  inspired  wisdom,  will  pretend  that  these 
arguments  have  little  or  no  weight,  because  they  are 
derived  from  sources  so  remote  in  regard  to  time. 

The  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  Paul,  that 
correct  reasoner,  and  divinely  inspired  teacher,  has 
set  this  example.  We  humbly  endeavour  to  imitate 
it.  To  establish  the  right  of  children  to  member- 
ship in  the  church  of  God,  we  trace  it  up  to  that 
memorable  period,  when  it  was  solemnly  granted  to 
them  by  her  glorious  Head:  we  show  it  to  be  a  right 
certainly  enjoyed  by  them  from  the  time  of  our  fa- 
ther Abraham;  a  right,  not  impaired,  but  rendered 
venerable  by  the  lapse  of  ages,  and  originally  se- 
cured to  them  by  a  perpetual  and  unchangeable  co- 
venant. And  in  doing  so,  we  not  only  imitate  the 
apostle's  method  of  reasoning  in  the  cases  just  spe- 
cified, but  follow  him  in  that  very  path  which  he 
has  marked  out  for  us  in  regard  to  a  part  of  our 
subject.  To  evince  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
comes  on  Gentiles,  through  Jesus  Christ,  he,  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Galatians,  proves  the  perpetuity  of 
the  patriarch's  covenant.f     Here,  then,  we  have  an 

*  Rom.  iv.  1—3.  t  Gal.  iii.  13—18. 


164  LETTEJt   X. 

infallible  guide.  We  have  gone  no  farther  than  he 
leads  us.  We  have  followed  him  to  the  patriarch's 
day,  when  the  grand  constitution  of  the  church  was 
formed,  and  the  glorious  charter  of  her  privileges 
granted:  and,  having  ascertained  that  the  member- 
ship of  children  was  then  established,  by  an  unal- 
tered instrument,  the  pages  of  which  time  can  never 
efface;  we  justly  conclude,  no  mortal  power  can  de- 
prive them  of  a  blessing  conferred  by  the  IMost 
High,  and  that  they  have  a  scriptural  claim  to  bap- 
tism, the  Christian  seal  of  the  covenant. 

We  have  more  to  say  in  answer  to  this  objection. 
It  depends  on  a  supposition  of  our  having  but  little 
to  do  with  the  Old  Testament;  a  supposition,  which 
finds  no  countenance  in  the  apostle's  writings,  and 
is  productive  of  errors  of  very  injurious  tendency. 
Against  such  a  sentiment,  we  enter  our  solemn  pro- 
test. What  is  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice?  The 
New  Testament  only^  By  no  means.  The  scriptures 
both  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testaments,  the 
writings  of  the  prophets,  together  with  the  writings 
of  the  apostles,  constitute  this  rule.  The  bible, 
containing  a  divine  revelation,  delivered  to  the 
ehurch  by  "  holy  men  of  God,  who  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  under  both  dis- 
pensations, is  the  divine  standard  given  to  form  our 
sentiments,  and  to  regulate  our  actions.  Against 
neglecting  the  first  part  of  this  heavenly  volume,  the 
writers  of  the  second  have  cautiously  guarded,  by 
referring  to  it  on  various  occasions;*  not  only  t© 


Objections  Answered,  165 

prove  the  accomplishment  of  prophecies,  and  the 
fulfilment  of  tvpes,  but  also  to  establish  important 
doctrines  and  duties.  A  promise  r^'cordcd  in  the 
Old,  is  as  much  an  object  of  our  faith,  as  a  promise 
recorded  in  the  New,  Testament:  and  laws  of  a  ge- 
neral nature  published  in  the  former,  and  not  re- 
pealed in  the  latter,  retain  all  their  oi'ij^inal  autho- 
rity. To  endeavour,  then,  to  diminish  the  respect 
due  to  the  oracles  of  divine  truth  contained  in  the 
first  part  of  our  sacred  volume,  is  extremely  wrong: 
and  that  opinion,  which  cannot  be  supported  but  by 
such  unhallowed  means,  must  be  false. 

Further:  The  objection  which  we  combat,  is 
grounded  on  another  notion  equally  erroneous, — 
that  age  lessens  the  authority  of  divine  laws.  The 
obligations  arising  from  statutes  enacted  by  mortals, 
whose  breath  is  in  their  nostrils,  time  may  affect: 
it  may  at  last  render  them  obsolete,  and  deprive 
them  of  all  their  power.  But  it  were  treating  with 
disrespect  the  majesty  of  Jehovah,  whose  nature 
changes  not,  and  whose  authority  is  ever  the  same, 
to  imagine  that  the  lapse  of  ages  can  impair  the 
obligation  resulting  from  a  law  given  hy  him  to  his 
creatures.  They  may  neglect  it,  and  forget  it:  but 
he  will  neither  forget  it,  nor  sufter  the  violation  of 
it  to  go  unpunished.  In  the  records  of  heaven,  it 
is  written  with  indelible  characters.  The  moral 
law,  first  published  in  Paradise,  speaks  to  us,  their 
remote  descendants,  with  as  much  authority  as  it 
spoke  to  our  original  parents.    The  penal  conse- 


166  LETTER   X. 

quences  of  breaking  the  covenant  made  with  them, 
run  parallel  witli  time,  and  stain  with  guilt  and  pol- 
lution everj  child  of  Adam.  Several  times,  indeed, 
has  the  moral  law  been  repeated,  and  new  editions 
of  it  given  to  the  world;  not,  however,  because  its 
obliga  ion  was  weakened  bv  age,  but  because  de- 
praved man  is  so  apt  to  forget  the  commandments 
of  God. 

Finally:  In  regard  to  the  particular  law  in  ques- 
tion, which  ordained  the  application  of  the  cove- 
nant-seal to  infants,  let  it  be  observed,  that,  being 
in  constant  operation,  it  eould  not  be  forgotten:  and, 
therefore,  when  circumcision  was  abolished  and 
succeeded  by  baptism,  nothing  more  was  necessary 
to  make  known  to  the  church  the  will  of  her  Su- 
preme Head,  than  for  an  inspired  writer  to  prove 
her  ancient  constitution  unrepealed. 


LETTER  XT. 

©BjECTioxs  AxswEPvED. — 4.  PosUhe  pvecc'pt  and 
express  example  waliting-^l  Cor,  \ii.  14,  ex- 
pl allied — 5,  JVo  ohUgation  arises  from  infant 
haplism. 

Christian  Brethren, 

Let  lis  resume  tlie  subject  of  our  last,  and  pro- 
secute, in  this  letter,  our  answer  to  objections. 

4.  Against  the  practice  of  infant-baptism,  it  is 
objected,  **  That  the  New  Testament  contains  nei- 
ther posiiire  precept,  nor  express  example,  to  war- 
rant it." 

In  reply  to  this  objection,  it  might  be  sufficient 
to  remark,  that  neither  positive  precept  nor  express 
example  can  be  found  in  the  New  Testament  to  jus- 
tify the  admission  o{  femoles  to  participate  in  our 
Lord^s  Slipper.     Yet,  no  one  is  extravagant  enough 
to  contend,  that  they  should  be  debari'cd  from  the 
enjoyment  of  this  pi'ccious  ordinance.     Believing  in 
Jesus  Christ,  women  have  the  qualifications  requi- 
site to  a  worthy  approach  to  his  holy  table:  and, 
therefore,  they  ought  to  be  admitted  to  hold  fellow- 
ship with  that  divine  Bedeemer  whom  they  love, 
and  with   his  people  of  whom   tliey  constitute    so 
large  apartj  and,  from  their  manifest  right,  we  just- 


168  XETTER  XI. 

ly  infer,  notwithstanding  the  want  of  a  particular 
kind  and  degree  of  evidence,  that  the  apostles  did 
not  hinder  their  enjoyment  of  this  important  privi- 
lege, hut  freely  admitted  them  to  it. 

I  am  aware  that  the  opponents  of  infant  bap- 
tism attempt  to  make  out  a  positive  precept  for 
female  communion.  But  the  attempt  is  vain.  The 
whole  process  of  their  reasoning,  affords  demon- 
strative proof  that  no  such  precept  exists;  because, 
if  it  did,  no  reasoning  would  be  required;  it  would 
be  sufficient  to  produce  the  precept,  and  let  it  speak 
for  itself. 

Let  us  now^  take  a  different  view  of  this  objec- 
tion.    To  what,  my  brethren,  does  it  amount?  To 
nothing  more  than  this:  That  God  has  not  given  as 
much  evidence,  or  the  particular  kind  of  evidence 
which    some   wish,    and   others   are    unreasonable 
enough  to  demand!    But,  surely  this  cannot  prove, 
that  he  has  not  afforded,  in  his  holy  word,  evidence 
which  ought  to  convince  us  that  infant  haptism  is  an 
appointment  of  his  sovereign  will.     Jesus  Christ, 
■says  the  infidel,  did  not,  after  his  resurrection,  show 
himself  to  the  Jewish  people;  but,  can  it  be  fairly 
inferred  from  this  fact,  that  he  did  not  show  him- 
self to  chosen  witnesses,  and  satisfy  them,  by  many 
hvfalUble  proofs,  of  his  being  indeed  alive  from  the 
dead?  Miracles,  say  they  again,  are  not  wrought 
in  our  day;  but,  is  it  a  legitimate  conclusion  from 
this  fact,  that  miracles  were  never  wrought; — that 
tlie  heavenly  commission  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 


Ohjections  Answered.  161> 

was  not  attested  "  by  signs  and  wonders,  and  by  di- 
vers miracles,  and  gifts  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost?"  The 
sacred  scriptures  are  not  accompanied  with  evidence 
so  irresistible,  as  to  overpower  all  unbelief,  and 
compel  the  assent  of  all  men  to  their  divine  origi- 
nal: but,  does  it  follow  from  this  fact,  that  they  are 
not  attended  by  evidence  suflicient  to  convince  every 
candid  and  inquiring  mind,  and  to  leave  every  unbe- 
liever without  excuse? 

On  every  subject  in  religion,  the  question  should 
be,  not  what  evidence  is  not  given,  but  what  evi- 
dence is  given,  and  wliether  it  be  satisfactory.  Tak- 
ing this  rule  for  our  guide,  it  appears  highly  im- 
proper, first,  to  determine  in  our  mind  that  the  right 
of  infants  to  baptism  ought  to  be  supported  by  such 
and  such  evidence;  and,  then,  to  conclude  that  they 
have  not  a  right  to  it,  merely  because  the  particular 
kind  and  degree  of  evidence  which  we  fancy,  is  not 
found  in  sacred  scripture.  Our  duty  is,  to  receive 
the  truth  in  whatever  way  it  may  please  God  to 
make  it  known:  and,  in  regard  to  the  question  un- 
der consideration,  it  is  our  manifest  duty  to  collect 
all  the  evidence  contained  in  the  great  rule  of  our 
faith  and  practice;  and,  if  it  be  sufficient  to  deter- 
mine the  question  in  favour  of  children,  to  acknow- 
ledge their  rig!it;  alihough  unsupported  by  evidence 
as  strong  as  we  could  wish,  or  of  that  kind  which 
we  should  prefer:  ever  remembering,  that  it  Mould 
be  presumptuous,  in  a  high  degree,  to  prescribe  to 
the  Sovereign  of  the  universe,  whose  infinite  wisdom 


170  XETTER   XI. 

Jias  adjusted  the  various  parts  of  his  revelation,  as 
uell  as  other  things,  so  as  most  cflTeetualij'  to  sub- 
serve the  accomplishment  of  his  own  adorable  pur- 
poses. 

On  this  correct  and  reasonable  principle,  we 
have  conducted  our  inquiry  in  regjard  to  the  privi- 
leges of  children.  Instead  of  determining  what  tne 
holj  scriptures  ought  to  say,  we  have  diligently  en- 
deavoured to  learn  what  they  do  say,  on  this  inte- 
resting question.  Far  from  prescribing  to  our  au- 
gust Sovereign  how  to  make  known  his  will,  we 
liave  searched  after  the  intimations  of  it  with  re- 
spect to  our  beloved  offspring.  And  what  has  been 
the  result  of  patient  and  humble  investigation?  We 
have  discovered,  that,  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  the 
Supreme  Being  gave  to  his  people's  children  a  seal- 
ed interest  in  his  covenant,  which,  beyond  all  dis- 
pute, they  continued  to  enjoy  till  our  Saviour's  ad- 
vent; that  this  perpetual  covenant  secui'es  to  chil- 
dren a  special  relation  to  the  Most  High,  consti- 
tuting them  members  of  his  church,  under  the 
Christian,  as  it  did  under  the  Jewish  dispensation; 
and  that  baptism  is  now,  what  circumcision  was jfor- 
inerly,  a  seal  to  this  covenant.  These  important 
particulars  are  revealed  with  sufficient  plainness; 
and,  in  favour  of  them,  we  have  seen  our  Lord,  his 
prophets  and  apostles,  and  the  providence  and  Spi- 
rit of  God,  all  unite  in  bear  ng  testimony.  On  these 
truths  we  have  founded  the  conclusion,  that  chil- 
dren have  a  divine  right  to  baptism,  the  seal  of 
the  covenant,  and  the  token  of  church-felIo\^ship. 


Objections  Answered.  171 

While,  therefore,  we  admit  the  New  Testament 
to  contain  neither  positive  precept,  nor  express  ex- 
ample in  favour  of  our  practice,  we  maintain  con- 
fidently, that  our  Sovereign  Lord  has  signified  his 
will  wiih  sufficient  plainness,  to  make  it  our  duty 
both  to  acknowledge  the  membership  of  infants  in 
his  cliurcb,  and  to  mark  them  with  the  seal  of  his 
covenant,  by  washing  them  with  baptismal  water. 

In  replying  to  the  second  objection,  it  was  shown 
that  the  New  Testament  is  not  silent  on  this  sub- 
ject. We  now  intend  to  evince,  that,  although  it 
does  not  state,  in  direct  terms,  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants by  the  founders  of  the  Christian  church,  yet 
it  does  use  such  language  as  makes  it  highly  proba- 
ble they  did  baptize  them. 

The  sacred  historian  informs  us,  that  Lydia  and 
her  household  were  baptized; — that  the  jailor  was 
baptized  and  all  his  straightway;  and  Paul  tells  us, 
he  baptized  the  household  of  Stephanas. =^  Is  this 
the  language  of  antipoidobaptism?  Were  one  op- 
posed to  the  administration  of  this  rite  to  infants  to 
baptize  a  whole  family,  would  he  not,  in  writing  an 
account  of  it,  use  language  diiTerent  from  that  of 
tlie  inspired  penman,  and  speak  of  the  recipients  of 
the  ordinance,  not  as  a  househotdf  but  as  individu- 
als"} Surely  the  sacred  phraseology  accords  best 
with  the  sentiment  and  practice  of  pcedobaptism. 

On  this  presumptive  argument,  I  shall  not  dwell. 
Nor  will  I  detain  you  by  reasoning  on  Acts  ii.  38, 39, 

*  Acts  xvi.  15,  S3.  1  Cor.  i.  16. 


1''2  LETTER    XI. 

or  on  Mat.  xxviii.  19.  From  both  these  passages, 
considerable  evidence  might  be  drawn.  But  1  pur- 
posely pass  them  by,  in  order  to  lay  before  you  a 
text  containing  evidence  of  a  more  decisive  charac- 
ter. You  will  find  it  in  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  The  text 
reads  thus:  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sancti- 
fied by  the  tvife,  and  the  tinbeliemng  w^feis  sanctified 
by  the  husband:  else  were  your  children  unclean^ 
hut  now  are  they  no J.Y, 

To  set  aside  the  evidence  arising  from  this  pas- 
sage in  favour  of  infant-baptism,  it  is  contended, 
that  the  apostle  is  here  treating  of  the  legitimacy 
of  a  believer's  marriage  with  an  unbeliever,  and 
the  consequent  legitimacy  of  their  children,  in  re- 
ference to  the  civil  law."^  This  construction  is 
wholly  inadmissible,  and  highly  absurd  on  various 
accounts. 

1.  It  is  not  conceivable  how  persons,  having  been 
lawfully  married  previously  to  tlieir  conversion  to 
Christianity,  should,  in  consequence  of  that  event, 
be  led  to  doubt  the  legitimacy  of  their  marriage. 

2.  If,  in  some  unaccountable  way,  such  doubts 
arose  in  the  mind  of  any  believer  at  Corinth,  why 
did  he  apply  to  the  apostle  to  remove  them?  P.aul 
was  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  not  an  interpreter  of 
the  civil  law.  The  proper  source  of  information 
was  the  civil  law  itself:  and  the  doubting  Christian, 
if  unable  to  interpret  it  for  himself,  should  have 
taken  counsel  of  some  authorized  legal  character. 

*  Booth. 


Qhjections  Answered.  173 

Admitting  that  such  difficulties  actually  sprung 
up  in  the  minds  of  some  memhcrs  of  the  Corinthiaa 
church,  and  that  they  were  ahsurd  enough,  instead 
of  applying  to  the  proper  sources  of  information  at 
home,  to  write  on  tlie  subject  to  the  apostle  at  a 
distance  from  them;  let  us  examine  how  logical  this 
interpretation  will  make  Iiis  reasoning.  The  belie- 
ver says  to  him,  I  have  doubts  about  the  validity  of 
my  marriage;  I  wish  you  to  satisfy  my  mind  on  this 
important  and  delicate  subject,  and  counsel  me  what 
ought  to  be  done  by  a  person  in  my  circumstances. 
^Vhat  is  the  apostle*s  reply?  <*  You  and  your  unbe- 
lieving partner  have  been  lawfully  married."  And 
how  does  he  prove  this  assertion?  You  will  observe, 
that  the  latter  part  of  the  text  is  otFered  by  the  in- 
spired writer  as  a  proof  of  the/onner.  In  confir- 
mation of  this  assertion,  does  he  appeal  to  the  civil 
law,  and  show  from  it  that  the  marriage  of  these 
Christians  was  legally  contracted  and  celebrated? 
No;  he  barely  makes  another  assertion,  that  their 
children  were  legitimate,  and  (hat  too  in  terms  ne- 
ver  found  in  the  civil  law  among  the  heathen:  "Else 
were  your  children  unclean;  but  now  are  they  holy,'' 
A  strange  proof!  If  a  man  doubt  the  legitimacy  of 
his  marriage,  he  must  necessarily  doubt  the  legiti- 
macy of  his  children:  and,  therefore,  when  he  asks 
for  evidence  to  remove  his  difficulties,  to  tell  him 
his  cliildren  are  legitimate,  and,  consequently,  his 
marriage,  would  be  trifling  with  a  tender  inquiring 
conscience.     The  only  way  to  remove  such  doubts 

^2 


174j  LETTEK  XI, 

in  the  minds  of  the  Coiintliians,  would  have  been 
to  convince  tliem,  that  their  marriages  had  been 
contracted  agreeably  to  the  prescriptions  of  the  ci- 
vil law.  Satisfied  as  to  tlieir  marriage,  their  doubts 
with  respect  to  their  children,  would  of  course  have 
vanished. 

4.  This  construction  gives  to  the  terms  sanctify, 
and  holiji  a  sense  in  which  they  are  never  used  in 
scripture.  Legitimacy  in  regard  to  a  divine  law, 
they  may  and  do  express;  but  they  never  bear  this 
signification  in  reference  to  human  law.* 

*  Mr.  Booth,  at  the  close  of  his  laboured  interpretation  of  this 
text,  artfully  endeavours  to  make  his  readers  beheve,  that  the  diffi- 
culty arising  from  the  sense  which  he  gives  to  the  term  sanctified, 
is  the  very  difficulty  which  those  who  reject  this  sense  have  to  re- 
move. His  words  are  as  follow:  "  For  where,  I  demand,  where  is 
it  (the  terra  sanctified)  employed  in  the  tvhole  sacred  code,  to  ex- 
press that  act,  or  engagement,  between  a  man  and  a  woman,  which 
renders  it  lawful  for  them  to  cohabit  as  husband  and  wife?  ThiSf 
Jioxvever,  is  manifestly  the  case  /ie?'e."f  Truly,  this  is  a  strange 
demand.  Mr.  B.  attaches  a  most  extraordinary  idea  to  the  term; 
such  an  idea  as  it  never  expresses  in  the  Bible:  and,  then,  feeling 
embarrassed,  and  unable  to  justify  his  interpretation,  by  a  similar 
use  of  the  term  in  the  sacred  writings,  he  boldly  demands  help  from 
his  opponents,  insinuating  it  to  bp  incumbent  on  them,  who  reject 
this  signification  as  unscriptural,  to  remove  the  difficulty  attending 
it.  For  he  adds  immediately  after  the  above  quotation:  "  When, 
tl^erefore,  our  brethren  produce  a  parallel  text,  respecting  the  terra 
sanctified,  we  will  engage  to  retui-n  the  favour,  with  regard  to  the 
word  /i&/?/."  Here,  it  is  manifest,  Mr.  Booth  concedes  that  he  ap- 
l»lies  to  the  terms  sanctified  and  holy,  a  sense  in  which  they  are  not 
used  in  any  other  passage  of  sacred  scripture.  But  he  makes  a  roost 

'  t  Booth  en  Baptism,  vol.  u.  p.  4ie. 


Objections  Answered,  175 

Having  thus  exposed  the  iuconsisteney  of  the 
above  mentioned  interpretation,  I  proceed  to  lay  be- 
fore you  wJiat  is  conceived  to  be  the  true  meaning 
of  this  important  text.  To  render  the  explanation 
the  plainer,  it  shall  be  given  in  the  following  steps. 

1.  From  the  context,  it  is  evident,  that  the  ques- 
tion proposed  to  the  apostle,*  ^nd  answered  by  him, 
related,  not  to  the  children  of  the  Corinthians,  but 
to  the  lawfulness  of  cohabiting  with  unbelieving 
partners:  for  the  text  assigns  the  reason,  why  a 
Christian  man  should  not  put  away  his  unbelieving 
w  ife,  and  why  a  converted  w  oman  should  not  leave 
her  unbelieving  husband. 

2.  It  is  also  manifest,  that  the  apostle  removes 
the  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  the  Corinthians,  or 
proves  the  lawfulness  of  living  in  a  marriage-con- 
nexion with  unbelieving  partners,  by  referring  them 
to  the  state  or  holiness  of  their  children:  and,  if  wc 
respect  Paul  as  a  correct  reasoner,  we  shall  believe 
the  Corinthians  were  acquainted  with  the  fact  which 
he  adduced  in  proof  of  his  doctrine.  Had  they  been 
ignorant  of  this  fact,  although  it  amounted  to  de- 
monstration in  his  mind,  it  could  not  have  been  any 
evidence  to  them. 

equitable  demand!  He  insists  that  his  opponents  shall  lielp  him  out 
of  his  first  difficulty;  and  then  he  promises  to  return  the  kindness, 
by  helping-  HI hisis.hF  out  of  the  second!  But,  alas!  having  fallen 
mto  the  pit  which  he  dug  for  himself,  it  is  hardly  probable  they  will 
have  charity  enough  to  assist  him,  especially  as  he  seems  to  consi- 
der his  own  case  as  hopeless. 

*  1  Cor.  >ii.  1. 


176  LETtER   Xf, 

3.  The  cause  of  the  difficulty  was  a  Jewish  law 
relative  to  marriage.  The  douhts,  which  the  Co- 
rinthians entertained  about  the  lawfulness  of  living 
in  a  marriage-state  with  unbelievers,  unquestiona- 
bly sprung  from  some  law  which  they  were  appre- 
hensive forbade  such  a  connexion:  for,  if  they  knew 
©f  no  law  of  tbis  character,  it  was  impossible  for 
any  suspicions  on  the  subject  ever  to  arise  in  their 
minds.  What  law  could  this  have  been?  Not  the 
moral  law;  for  it  contained  no  such  prohibition.  Not 
the  civil  law;  for  it  authorized  persons,  in  these  cir- 
eumstanccs,  living  together.  From  what  law,  then, 
«ouId  the  difficulty  have  sprung?  The  Jewish  law, 
which  forbade  the  people  of  God  to  contract  mar- 
riage with  heathen s.=^  By  this  law,  the  offspring 
of  marriages  violating  it,  were  rendered  unclean  or 
unholy f  and  excluded  from  religious  privileges  to 
which  other  children  were  admitted.  The  breach 
of  this  law  was  considered  as  a  high  offence;  which 
could  not  be  expiated  but  by  dissolving  the  marri- 
age-relation, and  putting  away  both  the  strange 
wives,  and  their  children,  j 

Now.  it  is  well  known,  that  many  Judaizing  teach- 
ers disturbed  the  peace  of  the  primitive  churches, 
by  inculcating  the  necessity  of  obedience  to.  the  law 
of  Moses.  It  is  also  a  notorious  fact,  that,  although 
a  council  of  apostles,  convened  at  Jerusalem,  for 
the  express  purpose,  gave,  on  this  question,  a  so- 
lemn judgment,  which  exonerated  Gentile-Chris- 
tians from  the  burdens  imposed  by  the  Jewish  law- 

*  Deut.  vii.  3,  4.         f  Ezra,  chap,  ix  and  x. 


Ohjcciions  Ansivcrcd,  17f^ 

giver;  yet  Ihesc  corrupt  toacliers  ceased  not  to  per- 
plex the  churches,  and  to  endeavour  to  bring  thera 
into  bondage.  Sucli  men,  it  is  obvious,  could  not 
overlook  so  important  a  precept  of  Moses,  as  that 
prohibiting  certain  marriages:  and,  it  is  highly  pro- 
bable, tliey  inculcated  it  as  a  duty  resulting  from 
it,  for  Christians  to  put  away  their  unbelieving 
wives,  and  to  leave  their  unbelieving  husbands. 
Here,  then,  we  see  the  true  cause  of  the  difficulty 
removed  by  the  apostle  in  the  text; — the  real  source 
of  those  doubts,  on  a  most  delicate  subject,  whick 
afflicted  the  Corinthian  converts. 

^,  St.  Paul  answers  the  question,  probably  pro- 
posed to  him  on  this  interesting  case  of  conscience,* 
by  showing,  that  the  Jewish  law  relative  to  marri- 
age, whence  the  perplexity  had  arisen,  was  not 
obligatory  on  Christians.  This  is  not  done,  it  is 
true,  by  asserting  in  so  many  words.  The  law  is 
repealed;  but  it  is  taught  in  language  easily  under- 
stood by  those  who  keep  in  view  the  cause  of  the 
difficulty.  This  law^  pronounced  the  heathen  un- 
clean, unholy.  It  forbade  Jews  to  marry  them; 
and,  if  violated  by  any,  it  required  the  transgress- 
ors to  dissolve  their  marriages,  and  separate  from 
their  husbands  or  wives.  Had  this  la\v,  as  certain 
teachers  affirmed,  been  binding  on  Christians,  it 
would  have  required  from  them  the  same  painful 
separations.  But  it  was  not  obligatory:  and  the 
apostle  declares  the  truth,  in  language  consonant 

1  Cor.  vii.  1. 


178  LETTER    XI. 

to  scripture-phraseology:  "  The  unbelieving  hus- 
band, is  sanclijied  by  the  wife  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband."  Is  not  this  intelli- 
gible language?  The  law  pronounced  persons,  in  the 
circumstances  contemplated,  unclean,  unhohj:  and 
is  not  an  apostolic  affirmation  that  they  are  now 
sanctified,  the  same,  in  amount,  as  saying,  The  law 
is  no  longer  obligatory? 

In  like  manner,  Avas  the  repeal  of  the  law  dis- 
tinguishing  meats  into  clean  and  unclean,  and  re- 
stricting the  intercourse  of  Jews  with  Gentiles, 
made  known.  By  a  vision,  in  which  Peter  was  di- 
rected to  kill  and  eat  unclean  animals,  and  by  this 
reply  to  his  objection,  *<  What  God  hath  cleansed, 
that  call  not  thou  common^"  was  meal,  formerly 
prohibited,  sanctified  hy  the  word  of  God,  and  free 
intercourse  with  Gentiles,  opened.* 

Here,  then,  the  apostle  might  have  rested  the 
matter.  But  he  chose  to  support  his  affirmation, 
by  referring  them,  as  decisive  proof,  to  a  fact  with 
which  they  were  acquainted, — the  holiness  of  a  be- 
liever's children:  «  Else,"  saye  he,  "were  your 
children  unclean;  but  now  are  they  holy,^^  You  in- 
quire, "  Whether  it  be  the  duty  of  Christians  to 
separate  from  their  unbelieving  partners.  I  answer, 
JVo;  and  to  satisfy  your  minds,  I  refer  you  to  th« 
condition  of  children  born  of  parents  in  such  cir- 
cumstances. They  are  hoJij;  and  acknowledged  by 
the  church  to  be  so;  for  they  are  baptized.     Now, 

*  Acts  X.  9—20,  28. 


objections  Ansioered.  17^ 

lliis  fact,  duly  reflected  on,  \\V\  convince  von,  that 
the  law  which  has  occasioned  your  perplexity, 
is  not  binding  on  Christians:  for,  if  it  were,  such 
children,  ^sformerJij,  would  now  be  unclean,  and 
treated  accordingly  by  the  church: — they  would  be 
denied  the  privilege  of  bn[)ti«im.  It  is,  therefore, 
lawful  for  a  Christian  man  or  woman  to  cohabit 
with  an  unbelieving  wife  or  husband. 

That  this  is  the  inspired  writer's  meaning,  is 
apparent  from  (his  consideration,  that  the  Corin- 
thians could  not  understand  his  terms  in  any  other 
sense.  As  stared  already,  it  must,  in  deference  to 
ihe  apostle's  skill  in  argument,  be  admitted,  they 
knew  the  fact  to  which  he  refers  as  decisive  proof 
of  his  affirmation;  namely,  that  the  childsen  of  the 
marriages  conlemplat^MK  were  not  unclean,  but 
holy.  The  question,  then,  is,  What  ideas  did  the 
Corinthians  attach  to  these  terms?  Did  they  under- 
stand Paul  as  telling  them,  that  their  children  were 
legitimate,  and  not  heist anW  Thh  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted for  reasons  already  assigned,*  and  for  this 
additional  one,  that  if  he  had  urged  such  a  fact,  it 
could  not  have  removed  a  difficulty  springing,  not 
from  a  human,  but  fi'om  a  divine  law.  Did  they 
understand  him  as  meaning  the  internal  holiness  of 
Christian  children?  By  no  means:  for  he  never 
taught  such  a  doctrine,  but,  on  the  contrary,  de- 
clared all.  by  nature,  ♦*  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins, 
and  cidldren  of  wratli,^-'^ 

»  Ephes.  ii.  1—3. 


iSO  tETTER  XI. 

ITow,  tlicn,  did  the  Corinthians  understand  the 
aposde?  Just  as  a  Jew,  married  to  a  hea(hen,  and 
afterwards  eonv<  rted  to  Christianity,  wouUl  have 
understood  his  lanj^uai^^e.  Had  Paul  said  to  such  a 
convert,  Your  chihlren  arc  not  unclean;  they  are 
holy;  he  would  have  concluded  the  apostle  designed 
to  teach  him,  that  tJie  law,  prohihiting  the  connex- 
ion \\hich  he  had  formed,  was  repealed,  and.  con- 
sequently, tliut  his  chiidi'cn  were  admissible  to 
church-privileges.  And  this  signification  the  Co- 
rintliians  were  necessarily  led  to  adopt;  because  the 
terms  unclean  and  Iwhj^  stood  in  such  close  connex- 
ion with  that  Jewish  law  wliich,  had  it  been  obli- 
gatory on  tliem,  would  have  rendered  their  children 
unclean,  shut  them  out  of  the  church,  and  denied 
them  baptism. 

Tlius,  the  apostle  was  understood:  and  the  Co- 
rinthians saw  his  doctrine  carried  into  practice,  and 
the  churches  acting  on  the  principle  of  children  ha- 
in^  federallij  /io/j/,  by  dedicating  tliem  to  God  in 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  the  seal  of  his  covenant. 
This  interpretation  gives  to  the  apostle's  argument 
propriety,  consistency,   and  strength. 

As  an  objection  to  this  construction  of  the  text} 
it  may  be  asked,  **  If  the  federal  holiness,  or  bap- 
tism of  children,  was  a  fact  known  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans, how  came  they  to  doubt  of  the  lawfulness  of  a 
Christian's  remaining  in  a  nrarriage-connexion  with 
an  unbeliever?  From  this  fact,  could  they  not  have 
iiiferred  the  repeal  of  the  prohibitory  Jewish  sta- 


Objections  Answered.  181 

tute?"  We  have  already  stated  how  their  perplexity 
arose:— it  was  occasioned  hy  the  influence  of  corrupt 
teachers,  insisting  on  obedience  to  the  laws  of  Mo- 
ses, and  to  this  one  in  particular.  And  none  need 
be  surprised  at  their  success,  in  filling  with  doubts 
on  a  point,  though  important,  yet  not  essential, 
nilnds  but  imperfectly  instructed  and  grounded  in 
the  truths  of  our  holy  religion;  who  recollect,  that 
teachers  of  the  same  stamp,  had  influence  enough 
to  shake  the  faith  of  the  church  of  Galatia  in  fun- 
damental doctrines  of  the  gospel,  so  as  to  excite  in 
St.  Paul  fears  of  having  laboured  among  them  in 


vain 


# 


Another  objection  against  this  interpretation,  is, 
"  That  the  federal  holiness  of  children  goes  to  re- 
vive the  abrogated  covenant  of  Sinai."  The  objec- 
tion is  founded  on  a  capital  mistake, — that  all  rela- 
tive holiness  depended  on  the  existence  of  that  co- 
venant. This  kind  of  holiness  existed  long  before 
the  memorable  transactions  which  took  place  at  the 
foot  of  the  sacred  mount;  as  must  appear  to  any 
one  who  reflects  on  the  nature  of  it.  For  what  does 
it  mean?  Simply,  that  the  person,  denominated  holy 
in  this  sense  of  the  term,  stands  in  a  special  relation 
to  God,  and  is  dedicated  to  his  service.  Now,  did 
not  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  bring  him 
and  his  seed  into  a  special  relation  to  Jehovah? 
Were  they  not  visihUj  set  apart  and  consecrated  to 
his  service?  Unquestionably.    They  were,  then,  re- 

•  Gal.  ui. 


182  LETTER  XI. 

laiively  holy:  and,  consequently,  external  holiness 
existed  ages  hefore  the  formation  of  the  Sinai-co- 
yenantj  and  Abraham's  covenant,  being  perpetual 
with  the  church,  must,  of  course,  make  all  who 
have  an  interest  in  it  federally  or  relatively  holy. 
In  fact,  as  long  as  a  profession  of  religion  shall  be 
inade,  and  men  sustain  a  visible,  covenant-relation 
to  God,  this  kind  of  holiness  will  necessarily  exist. 
Zeal  for  a  favourite  tenet  may  aim  at  abolisliing  the 
name;  but  tlie  thing  itself  cannot  be  destroyed:  and 
even  persons  who  disdain  to  be  thus  denominated, 
are  externally  holy  to  the  Lord,  as  certainly  as  they 
have  been  baptized  in  his  name,  and  profess  to  have 
entered  into  covenant  with  him.  They  are  visibly 
set  apart  to  (he  service  and  honour  of  Jehovah:  and, 
consequently,  whether  renewed  in  heart  or  not,  are, 
in  fact,  specially  related  to  him;  that  is,  they  are 
relati-vely  hoJij.  Whoever,  then,  would  prove  the  abo- 
lition of  federal  holiness,  must  undertake  to  prove, 
tliat,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  there  is  no 
external  administration  of  the  covenant; — that  no 
profession  of  religion  is  required; — and  that  men  no 
longer  consecrate  themselves  Tisihly  to  God.  In  a 
word,  while  Abraham's  covenant  exists,  this  kind 
of  holiness  must  exist;  and,  while  infants  retain  an 
interest  in  it,  tlieif  must  be  federally  holy.^ 

One  more  objection  to  our  interpretation  of  the 
disputed  textf  it  seems  necessary  to  notice.  It  is, 
**  That  this  construction  applies  to  the  terms  sancr 

*  See  Letter  III.  d.  46—49. 


Ohjections  Answered.  ±&o 

tifled  and  liohj  different  significations;  ^vhereas,  it  is 
observed,  they  both  must  denote  the  same  thing." 

You  will  remark,  my  brethren,  Ihat  the  latter 
word  is  an  adjective,  expressing  quality;  and  the 
former,  a  verb,  signifying  action:  and,  therefore, 
that  this  real  difference  in  the  terms  themselves, 
would  authorize,  if  required,  the  application  of  dif- 
ferent senses  to  them.  Indeed,  although  both  were 
the  same  word,  yet  it  would  not  be  indispensable  to 
affix  to  them  precisely  the  same  idea:  for  there  are 
texts  in  holy  scripture,  in  which  it  is  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  give  to  the  same  term,  occurring  twice 
in  the  same  verse,  two  different  meanings.  Take  the 
two  following  as  examples:  "For  their  sakes,  I 
sanctify  myself,  that  they  also  might  be  sanctified 
through  the  truth.  And  Moses  said  unto  the  people. 
Fear  not:  for  God  is  come  to  prove  you,  and  that 
his  fear  may  be  before  your  faces,  that  ye  sin  not."^ 

Although,  therefore,  our  interpretation  applied 
to  the  terms  sanctified  and  holy  senses  very  differ- 
ent, yet,  if  they  were  warranted  by  scripture-au- 
thority, and  comported  with  the  apostle's  argument, 
it  could  be  no  reasonable  objection.  But  this  is  not 
fact.  We  give  to  both  words  the  same  general  idea; 
namely,  freedom  from  that  kind  of  uncleannesSf 
which  the  prohibitory  precept  attached  to  adults 
and  children  in  the  circumstances  contemplated. 

By  no  means,  however,  will  it  follow,  that  un- 
believers connected  by  marriage  with    believers, 

*  John  xvii.  19.  Exod.  xx.  2©, 


184  LETTER  Xf. 

ought  to  be  baptized,  as  well  as  their  children.  For 
the  holiness,  communicated  to  the  former  by  the 
abolition  of  this  law,  although  the  same  in  the  ge- 
neral idea,  yet  differs  in  degree  from  the  holiness 
communicated  to  the  latter:  the  sanctification  of 
adults  being  such  as  to  authorize  believers  continu- 
ing to  perform  towards  them  matrimonial  duties; 
but  the  sanctification  of  children  reaching  so  far 
as  to  render  them  fit  subjects  for  baptism.  In  a 
word,  the  eflTect  resulting  from  the  repeal  of  this 
law,  is  the  same  as  would  have  taken  place  under 
the  Jewish  economy,  had  it  been  then  annulled. 
What  effect  would  in  that  case  have  followed?  Would 
the  church  have  been  authorized  to  circumcise  Pa- 
gan adults  remaining  attached  to  idolatry?  Cer- 
tainly not:  for  other  reasons  than  sprung  from  this 
law,  would  have  prohibited  the  application  of  the 
covenant-token  to  such  characters.  Their  children, 
however,  would  have  acquired  a  title  to  circum- 
cision, and  been  put  in  the  same  condition  as  to 
church-privileges,  which  such  children  enjoyed  pre- 
viously to  the  enacting  of  the  prohibitory  statute. 
It  is,  then,  unreasonable  to  object  against  our  con- 
struction of  the  passage,  that  it  warrants  the  bap- 
tism of  unbelieving  adults;  because  the  repeal  of 
this  law,  even  under  the  Mosaic  economy,  would 
not  have  communicated  to  them  such  a  degree  of 
holiness  as  to  authorize  their  circumcision. 

On  the  whole,  this  text  contains  a  clear  apos- 
tolic testimony  in  favour  of  tlie  federal  holiness  of 


Ohjections  AnswemL  185 

infants  born  of  believing  parents,  and  ibeir  conse- 
quent rigbt  to  baptism;  and  an  inspired  record  of 
tbe  facts,  that  they  were  viewed  in  this  light  by 
apostolic  churches,  and  freely  admitted  to  the  Chris- 
tian seal  of  Abraham's  covenant. 

5.  Another  objection  urged  against  the  admis- 
sion of  infants  to  baptism,  and  the  last  which  I 
shall  notice,  is,  "  That,  being  unconscious  of  what 
is  done,  and  not  giving  their  consent,  no  obligation 
can  result  from  applying  the  ordinance  to  them; 
and,  consequently,  it  is  a  useless  ceremony. 

Had  the  advocates  of  this  objection  lived  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  they  might,  with  equal 
propriety,  have  opposed  tlie  c/rcw?nmioTi  of  infants 
as  a  useless  ceremony.  Infants  of  eight  days  old 
were  then  as  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  the  sign 
applied  to  them,  as  children  are  now:  and,  if  no 
obligation  result  from  their  baptism,  none  cotild 
have  resulted  from  their  circumcision;  because  they 
neither  gave,  nor  were  asked  their  consent. 

This  objection  is  founded  on  a  principle  the  most 
absurd;  a  principle  which,  admitted  as  just,  Avould 
exonerate  us  from  obligations  the  most  tender,  in- 
disputable, and  solemn.  Birth  was  given  us  in 
our  native  land,  without  our  consent,  or  putting 
it  at  our  option  in  what  country  to  be  born:  there- 
fore, the  civil  compact  has  no  authority  over  us, 
until  we  give  our  consent  to  live  under  it!  We  were 
connected  with  parents  whom  we  did  not  choose; 
they  brought  us  into  the  world,  without  consulting 


186  LETTER    XI. 

our  wishes;  they  nourished  and  educated  us,  with- 
out deigning  to  solicit  our  consent:  it  follows,  from 
these  facts,  that  we  owe  to  them  no  gratitude,  no 
ohedience;  we  may,  at  our  pleasure,  dissolve  the 
connexion,  and  refuse  to  be  their  children!  The 
great  progenitor  of  the  human  race  w  as  constituted 
our  federal  head,  previously  to  our  existence,  and, 
of  course,  without  our  consent:  therefore,  it  was 
unjust  to  bring  upon  us,  his  unoffending  offspring, 
the  consequences  of  his  fatal  apostasy,  in  which, 
«very  day  presents  painful  evidences  that  we  are  in- 
volved! Indeed,  the  principle,  carried  to  its  full 
extent,  will  go  to  prove,  that  we  owe  no  gratitude, 
no  obedience  to  our  glorious  Creator;  because  he 
gave  us  existence,  without  asking  us  whether  Ave 
were  willing  to  be  created! 

How  absurd  the  principle,  from  which  conse- 
quences so  shocking  to  common  sense,  maybe  fairly 
deduced!  The  fact  is,  an  obligation  of  a  most  seri- 
ous and  solemn  nature,  does  result  from  infant  bap- 
tism. A  child  is  bound  by  every  lawful  act  of  his 
parents,  which  involves  his  interest.  Both  by  hu- 
man and  by  divine  law,  they  are  constituted  his  na- 
tural guardians:  and,  therefore,  if  they  enter  into 
any  compact  in  his  behalf,  not  exceeding  their  just 
authority,  he  is  as  much  bound  by  it,  as  though  he 
had  entered  into  it  by  his  own  voluntai*y  choice. 
Can  it,  then,  be  doubted  whether  children  are  laid 
under  solemn  obligations  of  duty,  by  that  dedication 
•f  them  to  God,  which  their  parents  make  in  bap- 
tism? Is  not  this  a  lawful  act;  an  act  required  by 


Ohjeelions  Jinsivcrcd,  187 

divine  authority?  Is  it  not  also  an  act,  not  of  seve- 
rity, but  of  love;  an  act,  securing  to  children  rela- 
tions to  Jehovah  and  to  his  people,  of  an  invaluable 
nature?  The  Creator,  having  an  unlimited  propriety 
in  all  his  creatures,  possesses  an  indubitable  right 
to  command  parents  to  dedicate  the  children  which 
he  gives  them  to  his  service  and  glory,  and  to  ac- 
company the  surrender  with  a  signilicant  ceremony: 
and,  the  command  being  issued,  parents  are  bound, 
indispensably  bound  to  obey.  Is  it  not  highly  ab- 
surd, then,  to  imagine,  that  an  act  required  by  the 
Creator,  and  done  in  obedience  to  his  will  by  our 
natural  guardians,  imposes  on  us  no  obligation; 
•uerely  because  it  was  performed  without  our  con- 
sent? Many,  no  doubt,  baptized  in  infancy,  when 
arrived  at  mature  age,  feel  no  sense  of  obligation 
arising  from  baptismal  engagements:  but  this  mourn- 
ful fact  proves,  not  the  nullity  of  them,  but  only 
depravity  of  heart,  and  stupidity  of  conscience,  or, 
at  best,  mistaken  views  of  duty.  Samuel  was,  be- 
fore his  birth,  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  by  his  mother; 
but,  not  having  imbibed  the  spirit  of  this  objection, 
he  felt  himself  bound  by  her  vow  to  wait  upon  the 
Almighty  in  the  service  of  his  house.  Had  he  been 
disposed  to  indulge  a  disobedient  temper,  he  might 
have  pleaded,  not  only  that  the  vow  had  been  made 
without  his  consent^  but  also  that  it  was  a  voluntary 
one,  not  expressly  required  by  the  law  of  God.  But 
happily  the  inclination  of  this  pious  child  coincided 
with  duty;  and  he  diligently  and  faithfully  served 
the  Lord  all  the  days  of  his  life,  agreeably  to  his 


188  LETTER  XI. 

mother's  consecrating  promise.  And  had  all  bap- 
tized youth  as  correct  yiews,  and  as  holy  disposi- 
tions, as  young  Samuel,  they  would,  not  only  feel 
the  obligations  arising  from  their  infant  baptism, 
but  bless  the  Lord,  that  they  have  been  dedicated  to 
his  service  in  that  sacred  ordinance,  and  impressed 
with  the  seal  of  his  gracious  covenant. 

The  right  of  infants  to  baptism  has  now,  it  is 
presumed,  been  fairly  and  solidly  established  on 
scriptural  grounds;  and  the  principal  objections 
urged  against  it  have  been  refuted.  Other  passa- 
ges of  sacred  scripture,  purposely  omitted  for  the 
sake  of  brevity,  might  have  been  explained  apd 
brought  in  support  of  this  important  truth,  and  the 
accumulation  of  evidence  made  greater.  Testi- 
monies too  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  might  be 
adduced  from  the  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the 
Christian  church.  But,  as  an  examination  of  them 
would  extend  these  letters,  already  reaching  be- 
yond the  limits  originally  contemplated,  I  shall  omit 
them.  This  may  be  done  with  great  safety  to  our 
cause:  and,  indeed,  it  is  unnecessary  to  call  in  the 
aid  of  human  authority  for  the  support  of  a  truth, 
which  is  so  clearly  and  amply  taught,  in  the  divine 
records  of  our  faith  and  practice. 

Here,  therefore,  I  close  my  discussion  of  the 
right  of  infants  to  baptism.  In  my  next,  I  shall, 
my  brethren,  solicit  your  attention  to  an  examina- 
tion of  that  question  which  regards  the  mode  of  ad- 
ministering this  Christian  ordinance. 


LETTER  XIJ, 

Mode  of  baptism. — Immersion  not  exclusive — Pre- 
sumptions against  such  claims. 

Christian  Brethrex, 

WuEN  I  commenced  the  exposition  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  in  order  to  establish,  on  this  an- 
cient and  permanent  basis,  the  divine  right  of  in- 
fant baptism,  it  was  not  my  intention  to  discuss  the 
question  relative  to  the  mode  of  administering  that 
ordinance.  But  afterwards  reflecting  how  frequent- 
ly and  openly  the  mode  adopted  by  our  church  has 
been  censured  and  condemned,  it  occurred  that  si- 
lence, on  this  subject  in  these  letters,  might  be  con- 
strued into  a  supposition,  that  we  believe  our  prac- 
tice to  be  incapable  of  being  justified  on  scriptural 
principles.  Influenced  by  this  consideration,  I  de- 
termined to  enter  on  our  defence  in  regard  to  the 
mode  of  baptism. 

To  Christian  baptism,  three  things  are  necessa- 
ry; namely,  a  suitable  subject, — the  application  of 
water, — and  the  use  of  that  sacred  form  of  words 
prescribed  by  our  blessed  Lord.  If,  by  an  autho- 
rized administrator,  water  be  applied  to  a  rational 
creature,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  (he 


190  LETTER   XII. 

Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  that  person  is  truly 
baptized,  whether  water  be  applied  by  effusion,  by 
washing,  by  sprinkling,  or  by  immersion.  The  par- 
ticular manner  of  using  the  significant  emblem,  is 
not  essential:  it  is  only  a  circumstance  of  the  ordi- 
nance, which  may  be  varied  without  effecting  its 
validity.  For  wise  reasons,  our  divine  Redeemer 
has  restricted  his  church  to  no  single  mode,  but  left 
her  at  liberty  to  adopt  that  which  circumstances 
may  at  any  time  render  expedient  and  edifying. 

This  is  our  sentiment.    But  it  is  condemned  as 
unscriptural;  and  the  practice  which  Ave  ground  up- 
on it,  reproached  as  being  inconsistent  with  plain 
apostolic  example,  and  a  violation  of  a  positive  pre- 
cept of  our  Sovereign  Lord.     Were  our  brethren, 
who  thus  treat  our  sentiment  and  practice,  merely 
to  give  a  preference  to  that  mode  which  they  use  in 
baptism,  it  would  be  unnecessary  to  say  any  thing 
in  our  defence.     Both  parties  might  then  salute 
each  other  as  baptized  members  of  the  Redeemer's 
church:  and  the  difference  between  them  would  be 
so  inconsiderable,  as  to  furnish  no  excuse  for  angry 
disputes.     But  this  unhappily  is  not  the  case.     Our 
opponents  not  only  give  a  preference  to  immersion, 
but  affirm  it  to  be  the  only  laAvful  mode  of  admi- 
nistering baptism;  and  that  the  use  of  any  other 
destroys   the   ordinance,  as  well   as  departs  from 
recorded  precedents  established  by  inspired   men, 
and  contravenes  the  will  of  our  Lord  plainly  re- 
vealed in  his  word.    They  maintain  that  we  are  un- 


Fresumplioiis  against  Immersion,  191 

baptized  Christians,  and,  consequently,  not  mem- 
bers of  (he  churcli   of  Jesus  Christ.     All  this  is 
openly  affirmed,  and  frequently  inculcated.  Thus  we 
are  put  upon  our  defence.     This  I  now  undertake: 
and  Ijope  to  be  able  to  prove  our  opinion  correct, 
and  our  practice  consonant  both  to  apostolic  prac- 
tice, and  to  the  will  of  the  Lord  our  Redeemer.    In 
vindicating  the  mode   which  we  have  adopted,    I 
have  no  wish  to  condemn  that  of  our  brethren. 
They  use  the  appointed,  significant  emblem,  as  well 
as  we:  and,  therefore,  as  water  is  applied  to  the  re- 
cipient of  the  ordinance,  the  essence  of  it  is  pre- 
served.    But  the  justification  of  our  own  practice, 
and  the  proving  of  our  baptism  to  be  really  scrip- 
tural, wilU  by  necessary  consequence,  evince,  that 
they  have  no  warrant  for  the  censures  which  they 
so  freely  pass  upon  us.     To  the  law  and  to  the  tes- 
timony, we  make  our  appeal. 

Previously,  however,  to  an  examination  of  the 
divine  precept  relative  to  Christian  baptism,  and  of 
the  practice  of  the  apostles  under  it,  I  beg  leave  to 
detain  you,  by  laying  before  you  some  presumptive 
arguments  in  our  favour.  The  consequences  which 
result  from  the  exclusive  claims  of  our  opponents  to 
this  divine  ordinance,  are  so  serious  in  their  nature, 
as  to  furnish  several  presumptions  against  these 
claims;  which,  when  viewed  collectively,  amount 
to  decisive  proof  that  they  cannot  be  well  founded, 

1.  The  first  consequence  resulting  from  their 
sentiment,  is,  that  it  reduces  vast  numlfers  of  pi^o- 


192  XETTER  XII. 

J^essin^  Christians  to  the  state  of  unbaptized  per- 
sons. It  is  well  known,  that,  while  only  one  deno- 
mination of  Christians*  baptize  by  immersion,  all 
other  denominations  in  this  country  use  a  different 
mode:  and  it  is  also  notorious,  that  the  latter  are  in- 
comparably more  numerous  than  the  former.  From 
this  fact,  which  cannot  be  denied,  a  fair  presump- 
tion may  be  drawn,  that  the  great  mass  of  Chris- 
tians cannot  have  misunderstood  their  Lord's  in- 
structions with  respect  to  a  positive  rite,  so  greatly 
as  to  have  deprived  themselves  of  the  enjoyment  of 
it.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  lay  it  down  as  a  maxim, 
that  the  truth  is  always  to  be  found  with  the  majo- 
rity. Often  it  happens  that  the  majority  do  not  ex- 
amine the  subject  about  which  a  difference  in  opi- 
nion prevails,  and  suffer  themselves  to  be  misguided 
by  favourite  leaders:  thus  they  run  into  error,  while 
the  minority,  by  careful  investigation,  discern  and 
embrace  the  truth.  But,  in  the  present  case,  when 
we  consider  the  nature  of  the  question,  and  the  cha- 
racters found  among  those  who  hold  other  modes 
than  immersion  to  be  valid;  we  may  fairly  presume, 
the  majority  of  Christians  cannot  be  in  an  error  so 
essential  as  this  objection  imports.  The  design  of 
our  Lord  in  appointing  this  sacred  rite,  was,  that 
it  should  be  worn,  by  his  disciples,  as  a  distinctive 

*  The  Dunkers  use  immersion.  But  they  are  a  sect  so  small, 
and  so  little  known,  that  it  seemed  unnecessary  to  take  notice  of 
them  above.  Besides,  they  are  entitled  to  the  name  derived  from 
baptism  equally  with  those  who  have  assumed  it;  and  may,  there™ 
^(jre,  be,  with  propriety,  ranked  under  the  same  general  name. 


Presumptions  against  Immersion,  193 

uiark; — that  it  should  he  a  solemn  introduction  of 
them  into  his  visible  church; — and  that  it  sliould  be 
enjoyed  as  an  important  privilege,  signifying  and 
scaling  to  them  the  blessings  of  his  gracious  cove- 
nant. Can  it,  then,  be  admitted,  that  all  other  de- 
nominations of  professing  Christians,  except  one, 
have  so  grossly  misconstrued  the  rule  of  their  faith 
and  practice,  as  to  have  deprived  themselves  of  this 
important  pnvilege?  lost  the  substance,  \\hile  they 
retain  the  shadow?  imagining  themselves  impressed 
with  the  seal  of  their  Great  Master,  wliile  they 
have  only  a  counterfeit  impression  of  it?  If  this  be 
fact,  how  has  it  happened?  What  untoward  cause 
has  produced  this  mournful  deception;  thus  defraud- 
ing them  of  an  important  privilege,  and  seducing 
them  from  the  path  of  duty?  Want  of  learning^ 
None  dare  assert  this  to  be  the  cause.  The  highest 
honours  which  genius  and  learning  could  merit, 
have  been  due  to  those  who  combated  the  exclusive 
claims  of  immersion.  They  have  flourished  at  the 
head  of  colleges  and  universities;  they  have  filled 
the  theological  chair  with  the  greatest  applause; 
tliey  have  walked  through  the  circle  of  the  scien- 
ces; they  have  enlightened  the  world  by  their  ge- 
nius, and  instructed  it  by  their  incomparable  wri- 
tings; tliey  have  adorned  the  pulpit  by  their  elo- 
quence and  learning;  their  praise  has  been  in  all  the 
churches.  Want  of  picty^  We  number  in  our  ranks 
the  brightest  luminaries  of  the  church;  men  who 
have  made  the  greatest  sacrifioes  iu  favour  of  true 


19i  LETTER   XII. 

religion;  men  of  apostolic  spirit  and  zeal;  men  <*of 
whom  the  world  was  not  worthy;"  spirits  that  rank 
high  among  their  kindred  spirits  in  glory,  and  are 
distinguished  by  the  brilliant  crown  of  martyrdom. 
Want  of  candid  investigatiori^  Who  can  bring  this 
opprobrious  accusation  against  such  holy  men,  the 
first  wish  of  whose  heart,  was  to  know  and  do  their 
Master's  will;  who,  by  their  writings  on  the  sub- 
ject, prove  that  they  had  maturely  examined  it. 
Thus  possessing  every  requisite  quality  for  search- 
ing after  and  finding  the  truth,  who  can  believe 
that  these  Christians  were,  with  respect  to  an  im- 
portant rite,  in  an  error  so  essential  as  to  have 
lived  and  died  without  it?  Had  their  characters 
been  different;  had  they  been  destitute  of  learning 
and  piety,  or  had  they  neglected  to  investigate  their 
duty;  sufficient  reasons  might  be  assigued  for  this 
great  mistake.  But  when  we  consider  the  excel- 
lence of  their  characters;  that  they  were  eminent 
for  learning  and  genius;  that  they  loved  the  truth, 
and  searched  for  it  as  for  hidden  treasure;  that  they 
were  models  of  piety:  it  appears  incredible,  that 
they  should  have  lived  and  died  without  the  seal  of 
that  covenant,  which  was  all  their  salvation,  and 
all  their  desire!  Was  Luther,  that  great  reformer; 
was  Calvin,  that  incomparable  genius;  was  Knox, 
that  intrepid  servant  of  Christ;  was  Owen,  tha 
1  arned  and  profound  divine;  Mas  Baxter,  so  fer- 
vent in  piety,  and  acute  in  his  investigations;  and 
were  thousands  of  other  divines,  eminent  for  their 


Presumptions  against  Immersion.  195 

piety  and  learning,  and  belonging  to  the  reformed 
churches,  both  in  Europe  and  in  America:  were  all 
these,  together  with  the  myriads  of  Christians  whom 
they  instructed  and  edified  by  their  discourses,  wri- 
tings, and  examples,  so  mistaken  in  their  views  of 
duty,  that  they  lived  and  died  without  baptism;  with- 
out a  regular  introduction  into  the  visible  church  of 
Christ;  without  that  mark  appointed  by  our  Lord 
to  distinguish  his  disciples  from  the  world;  without 
the  enjoyment  of  a  privilege  designed  by  him  for 
the  benefit  of  all  his  followers?  incredible! 

2.  The  next  presumption  against  immersion,  as 
an  exclusive  mode,  is,  That  it  reflects  on  the  ivisdom 
and  goodness  of  our  heavenly  Lawgiver .  I  am  ful- 
ly aware,  that,  when  speaking  about  a  line  of  con- 
duct becoming  divine  perfections,  we  may,  unless 
the  bold  decisions  of  human  reason  be  duly  and  cau- 
tiously restrained,  be  guilty  of  unpardonable  irre- 
verence and  arrogance.  Yet  there  are  cases  so 
plain,  that  we  may  confidently  assert,  such  proce- 
dure would  not  comport  with  the  character  of  an 
infinitely  perfect  being.  For  example:  The  state 
of  this  world  is  so  disordered,  and  tlie  distribution 
of  rewards  and  punishments,  so  unequal,  that  it  is  no 
presumption,  but  due  respect  to  the  attributes  of  our 
Supreme  Ruler,  to  affirm  that  this  confused  state 
of  things  cannot  always  remain,  and  that  the  glory 
of  his  holy  name  requires  his  interposition  to  cor- 
rect the  prevailing  disorder,  by  rewarding  every 
man  according  to  his  works. 


196  IBTTER  XII. 

Of  this  kind  is  the  case  before  us.  Two  points 
we  may  take  for  granted:  first,  that  our  Lord  insti- 
tuted baptism  for  all  his  disciples,  to  be  worn  by 
them  as  a  mark  of  distinction,  from  the  rest  of  man- 
kind; and,  secondly,  that  he  foresaw  the  disputes 
which  have  arisen  on  this  subject,  and  the  different 
modes  of  administering  the  ordinance  which  have 
prevailed  in  his  church.  Neither  of  these  positions 
ean  be  disputed  by  any  reflecting  on  the  omniscience 
of  our  Redeemer;  and  on  the  commission  given  to 
his  apostles  to  baptize  all  nations. 

Now,  from  these  premises,  the  conclusion  is  ob- 
vious and  incontestible,  that,  if  Jesus  Christ  had  ap- 
pointed immersion  as  the  only  lawful  mode  of  bap- 
tism, he  would  have  delivered  his  instructions  on 
the  nature  of  this  positive  rite,  so  plainly  as  to  have 
enabled  his  disciples,  desiring  to  know  and  do  his 
will,  to  acquire  the  knowledge  of  the  true  mode  of 
applying  baptismal  water;  so  plainly  as  to  have 
preserved  from  running  into  an  error  destructive  of 
his  ordinance,  the  millions  of  his  disciples,  who,  on 
this  supposition,  have  adopted  so  great  an  error, 
and  continued  in  it  through  successive  ages,  and  in 
the  most  flourishing  periods  of  his  church.  If  im- 
mersion be  essential  to  baptism,  and  every  other 
mode  incompatible  with  its  very  nature,  then  the 
mass  of  christians  have,  many  centuries,  been  des- 
titute of  an  ordinance,  which  our  blessed  Lord  de- 
signed for  all,  and  as  a  source  of  instruction  and 
comfort  to  them.     How  can  such  a  fact  be  reeonci- 


Presumptions  against  Immersion.  197 

led  with  his  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness?  He  fore- 
knew the  consequences,  whicli  have  actually  result- 
ed from  his  instructions  on  this  point  of  duty:  and, 
surely,  it  appears  a  fair  conclusion, — a  conclusion 
which  his  honor  demands  from  us,  that  if  he  had 
intended  to  make  immersion  essential  to  baptism* 
he  would  have  delivered  his  instructions  so  plainly 
as  to  have  kept,  at  least,  sincere  and  inquiring 
Christians,  from  an  error  so  radical,  as  the  objec- 
tion imputes  to  those  who  do  not  use  this  mode  of 
baptism. 

But,  it  is  asserted,  our  Lord  has,  by  positive  pre- 
cept, and  by  apostolic  practice,  plainly  determined 
immersion  to  be  the  only  lawful  mode.  The  exa- 
mination of  this  assertion,  I  reserve  for  another 
place  in  these  letters,  where  it  will  be  shown  to  be 
groundless.  Here,  to  destroy  its  force  as  an  objec- 
tion to  the  presumption  illustrated,  it  is  sufficient 
to  state  the  fact,  that  the  great  body  of  Christians 
have  interpreted  both  the  precept  of  our  Lord,  and 
the  practice  of  his  apostles,  otherwise  than  those 
who  urge  the  objection.  It  cannot  then  be  made  ap- 
pear, that  Jesus  Christ  has  revealed  his  will  con- 
cerning immersion  so  plainly  as  to  do  away  the  force 
of  my  remarks,  unless  one  of  these  tw  o  points  can 
be  proved;  namely,  either  tliat  he  has,  in  regard  to 
baptism,  legislated  only  for  a  part  of  his  church,  op 
that  Christians  not  using  immersion,  act  against 
their  own  convictions  of  truth  and  duty.  If  our 
Lord  legislated  only  for  a  part  of  his  church,  for 
s2 


i9S  LETTER   XII. 

that  section  >vhieh  practises  immersion,  then  it  must 
be  allowed,  they  being  judges,  that  his  instructions 
with  regard  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  are  plain  and 
decisive.  But  if  this  idea  cannot  be  admitted;  if  he 
legislated  for  his  wliole  church;  then,  allowing  other 
denominations  the  moderate  praise  of  being  sincere 
in  their  inquiries  after  truth,  and  acting  honestly 
up  to  their  conviction  of  duty,  and  taking  their  ca- 
pacity as  the  criterion  of  plainness,  it  will  follow, 
the  instructions  of  our  Lord  are  not  plainly  in  favour 
of  imm?Tsion.  The  fact,  that  they  believe  he  has 
not  determined  immersion  to  be  the  only  way  of  ad- 
ministering baptism,  incontrovertibly  decides  the 
question. 

That  their  capacity  is,  in  this  case,  the  true  cri- 
terion by  which  we  are  to  judge,  is  obvious.  Were 
I  teaching  a  number  of  children,  and  found  that  on- 
ly a  few  understood  my  instructions,  how  ought  the 
question,  whether  I  were  sufficiently  plain  in  com- 
municating my  ideas,  to  be  determined?  By  an  ap- 
peal to  the  capacity  of  the  few  who  did,  or  to  that 
of  the  majority  who  did  not,  understand  my  mean- 
ing? Certainly  to  the  latter.  So,  in  determining  the 
question,  whether  our  Lord  have  plainly  taught  im- 
mersion to  be  the  only  lawful  mode  of  baptism,  we 
must  appeal,  not  to  the  apprehensions  of  one  deno- 
mination of  Christians  who  think  he  has,  but  to  the 
apprehensions  of  the  many  denominations  who  think 
he  has  not. 


Presumptions  against  Immersion.  ±99 

The  instructions  of  our  Lord,  it  appears,  are  not 
plainly  and  decisiveli)  in  favor  of  immersion  as  the 
only  mode  of  baptism.  From  this  fact,  we  may 
conclude,  that  it  is  not  the  only  latcful  mode;  be- 
cause his  wisdom  and  his  love  to  the  church  would 
have  disposed  him,  had  he  intended  immersion  to  be 
essential  to  the  valid  administration  of  this  ordi- 
nance, to  deliver  his  mind  in  such  a  way,  as  would 
have  preserved  so  many  millions  of  his  followers 
from  adopting  and  continuing  in  a  practice  ut- 
terly repugnant  to  his  revealed  will,  and  fixing  on 
the  larger  part  of  his  people  the  reproach  of  being 

UNBAPTIZED. 

3.  A  third  presumption  against  immersion  as 
an  exclusive  mode,  is.  That  it  pays  no  regard  to 
Qlimate,  circumstances,  and  the  mild  genius  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  Jewish  economy  was  suited  to  the 
ehurch  of  God,  while  confined  to  one  country,  and 
to  one  nation;  but  the  Christian  dispensation  is  suit- 
ed to  her  state  in  that  period  in  which  she  is  not 
thus  confined,  but  is  to  spread  herself  over  the 
whole  globe,  and  diffuse  herself  among  all  nations 
The  rigorous  bondage  of  Moses  has  given  place  to 
the  mild  reign  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  church  serves 
no  longer  in  the  spirit  of  a  servant,  but  in  the  spi- 
rit of  a  son.  Formerly,  she  resembled  an  heir 
«*  under  tutors  and  governors,  until  the  time  ap- 
pointed of  the  father;"  now,  she  resembles  the  heir 
arrived  at  mature  age,  and  put  in  possession  of  his 


300  LETTER  XII. 

inheritance.  This  characteristic  difference  hetween 
the  two  economies,  is  discernible  in  their  doctrines, 
precepts,  promises,  and  ordinances. 

Had  immersion  been  prescribed  as  the  only  valid 
mode  of  baptism,  it  would  have  been  a  departure 
from  the  genius  of  the  present  dispensation.  Such 
a  mode  may  be  practised  in  a  warm  climate  without 
inconvenience;  but  it  is  not  adapted  to  the  severe 
and  icy  winters  of  a  northern  region.  Excessive  at- 
tachment to  immersion  has  impelled  some,  to  the 
vain  attempt  of  proving  it  is  not  prejudicial  to 
health,  even  in  cold  climates.  In  support  of  this 
opinion,  they  have  adduced  the  authority  of  physi- 
cians recommending  the  frequent  use  of  the  cold 
bath.  Now,  admitting,  in  deference  to  the  judg- 
ment of  professional  characters,  that,  by  daily  use, 
persons  become  accustomed  to  the  cold  hath,  and 
gain  greater  vigour  of  constitution^  yet,  before  the 
position,  in  proof  of  which  this  medical  opinion  is 
pleaded,  can  derive  any  aid  from  it,  it  should  he 
shown  to  be  a  fact,  that  the  people  of  this  country 
are  in  the  habit  of  immersing  themselves  daily  in 
cold  water.  But,  while  this  is  not  their  habitual 
practice,  it  might,  with  equal  truth,  be  maintained, 
that  a  person  long  confined  to  his  chamber  hy  sick- 
ness, could,  witliout  danger,  go  abroad  in  rainy 
weather,  because  others,  hardened  by  frequent  ex- 
posure, experience  no  inconvenience;  as  be  con- 
tended, that  a  single  application  of  cold  water  is  ne- 
ver likely  to  be  hurtful  to  any,  although  wholly  unac- 
customed to  it.     Can  weak,  infirm  people,  unable  to 


Presumptions  against  Immersion.  261 

bear  a  few  drops  of  rain,  endure  tlie  plunging  of 
their  whole  body  into  a  river  during  the  winter-sea- 
son, without  receiving  an  injury  to  their  health? 
To  affirm  this,  serves  only  to  prove  how  far  zeal  for 
a  favourite  tenet,  can  impel  even  men  of  sense  and 
learning.  There  are  diseases,  it  is  well  known,  the 
subjects  of  which  could  not  be  thus  immersed  with- 
out manifest  danger  to  their  lives:  and,  therefore,  if 
immersion  be  the  only  lawful  mode  of  baptism,  they 
must  run  this  great  risk,  or  die  unbaptized.  And 
can  we  imagine,  that  our  gracious  Lord,  who  has 
suited  his  dispensation  to  €>\ery  climate,  and  conde- 
scends to  bear  the  infirmities  of  his  people,  has  pre- 
scribed a  mode  of  administering  his  ordinance,  at- 
tended often  with  danger  to  the  health,  and  some- 
times even  to  the  lives  of  his  disciples?  The  cross 
must  indeed  be  borne,  whenever  our  master  is  plea- 
sed to  lay  it  on  our  shoulders:  but,  let  it  never  be 
forgotten,  the  crosses,  which  fidelity  to  his  cause 
requires  us  to  bear,  are  such  as  he  prepares  and  ap- 
points, not  those  which  a  rash  and  impetuous  zeal 
occasions.  On  the  one  hand,  we  must  not  allow 
ourselves  in  any  thing  prohibited  by  our  Lord,  how- 
ever pleasing  to  our  natural  inclinations;  and,  on 
the  other,  we  should  not  surrender  the  liberty 
which  he  has  granted,  but  thankfully  enjoy  it. 

The  ideas  of  delicacy  which  prevail  in  this  coun- 
try, receive  a  shock,  when  females  are  seen  plunged 
into  a  river,  before  a  promiscuous  concourse  of  peo- 
ple. But,  not  to  insist  upon  this,   we  may  assert. 


202  LETTER   XII. 

without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism in  use  among  us,  is  abundantly  more  favoura- 
ble than  immersion  to  the  preservation  of  that  de- 
vout and  holy  frame  of  soul,  and  the  exercise  of 
those  spiritual  and  believing  meditations,  which  so 
well  accord  with  the  nature  of  tliat  solemn  transac- 
tion in  which  the  recipient  of  the  ordinance  is  en- 
gaged. On  the  bank  of  a  river,  how  many  things 
concur  to  distract  the  thoughts!  The  croud,  the  ad- 
justment of  clothes,  the  dread  of  cold  water,  shi- 
Tcring  limbs,  and  a  subsequent  change  of  dress;  all, 
and  many  other  incidents,  unite  to  disturb  the  com- 
posure, particularly  of  female  minds,  and  divert 
them  from  spiritual  and  eternal  objects.  But,  iu 
the  house  of  God,  the  solemnities  of  public  worship, 
the  devout  attention  of  spectators,  and  the  previous 
retirement  of  the  candidate,  are  all  calculated  to 
assist  the  soul  in  making  that  solemn  surrender  to 
God,  and  keeping  up  those  holy  exercises  of  heart 
and  mind,  which  the  ordinance  demands. 

Such  strong  presumptive  arguments  oppose  the 
exclusive  claims  of  immersion.  Bring  them,  my 
brethren,  into  one  view,  and  unite  their  force. 
These  claims  reduce  vast  numbers  of  professing 
Christians  to  the  reproachful  state  of  iinhaptized 
persons: — they  pay  no  regard  to  climate,  circum- 
stances, and  the  mild  genius  of  Christianity; — and 
they  reflect  upon  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  our 
Lord  .Tesus  Christ.  Now,  I  ask,  whether  a  senti- 
ment, from  which  such  serious  consequences  result, 


Cases  of  J^postolic  Baptism.  £03 

can  be  founded  in  truth;  and  whether  these  pre- 
sumptions, collectively  considered,  do  not  amount 
to  conclusive  evidence,  that  immersion  cannot  he 
prescribed  in  holy  scripture,  as  the  only  laurful 
mode  of  administering  baptism? 


LETTER  XIIL 

The  question  in  dispute  fairly  stated — John's  bap- 
tism not  Christian — Cases  of  apostolic  baptism 
examined. 

Christian  Brethren, 

The  consequences  resulting  from  immersion, 
considered  as  an  exclusive  mode  of  baptism,  have 
furnislied  us  with  strong  presumptive  arguments 
against  the  pretensions  of  its  advocates.  But  they 
profess  to  establisli  tlieir  cJaims  on  firm  ground. 
They  plead  apostolic  example,  and  positive  precept. 
Tliis  is  high  and  commanding  authority;  and,  if  it 
warrant  their  exclusive  claims,  we  must  submit, 
and  allow  them  to  be  well  supported.  I  propose  in 
this  and  the  next  succeeding  letters,  to  examine  the 
principal  argument  of  our  opponents,  and  to  show 


284  LETTER  XIII. 

you  the  grounds  on  which  they  venture  to  call  all 
who  use  a  mode  different  from  theirs  unhapti^ed 
Christians. 

1.  They  adduce  apostolic  practice,  as  authori- 
zing no  other  way  of  applying  baptismal  water  than 
immersion.  We  unite  with  them  in  professing  to 
entertain  great  reverence  for  those  honoured  foun- 
ders  of  the  Christian  church,  who  were  led  hy  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  God;  and  in  maintaining,  that  their 
practice  in  the  administration  of  religious  ordi- 
nances, should  be  duly  imitated. 

Let  us  hear,  then,  what  our  opponents  have  to 
say  in  regard  to  apostolic  example.  They  bid  us 
open  the  New  Testament,  and  look  at  certain  cases 
of  baptism,  recorded  by  the  pen  of  inspiration; 
which  they  affirm  proves  clearly  that  the  apostles 
baptized  by  immersion. 

Before  entering  on  the  examination  of  these  ca- 
ses, I  shall  make  one  remark,  which  I  wish  you  to 
recollect  throughout  the  whole  discussion.  It  is 
this:  That,  to  support  the  exclusive  pretensions  set 
up  by  our  brethren,  it  is  by  no  means  sufficient  for 
them  to  show  that  the  apostles  sometimes  used  im- 
mersion in  administering  baptism.  For  the  ques- 
tion in  debate  is,  not  whether  immersion  be  a  laxv- 
ful,  but  whether  it  be  the  onlif  lawful,  mode  of  bap- 
tism. Were  they  proving  merely  the  lawfulness  of 
this  mode,  it  would  indeed  be  enough  to  justify  it, 
if  they  could  adduce  one  or  more  instances  in  which 
it  was  used  by  apostolic  administrators.     But  this 


Cases  of  Jipostolic  JBajUisvi*  2QB 

is  not  the  case.  \Ve  make  no  attack  on  their  prac- 
tice; we  allow  the  validity  of  immersion.  They  at- 
tack us,  by  denouncing  our  practice  as  unscriptural 
and  unwarrantable:  and,  therefore,  it  is  incumbent 
on  them  to  prove,  not  only  that  the  apostles,  in  a 
few  instances^  immersed  their  subjects  of  baptism, 
but  that,  in  all  cases,  they  immersed  them,  and  never 
used  any  other  mode  of  administering  this  Chris- 
tian rite. 

To  illustrate  this  matter,  let  us  suppose  a  dis- 
pute between  two  persons  with  regard  to  the  pos- 
ture proper  in  prayer.  In  performing  this  holy  du- 
ty, the  one  kneels,  and  the  other  stands,  before  the 
Lord.  The  former,  not  only  gives  a  preference  to 
his  posture,  but  maintains  it  to  be  the  only  proper 
posture  for  a  sinner:  he  insists  that  to  stand  in 
prayer,  is  to  pray  in  an  unscriptural  and  unwar- 
rantable manner.  To  support  his  opinion,  this  zeal- 
ous Christian  turns  over  the  leaves  of  his  bible  to 
collect  the  several  cases  on  record,  in  which  it  ap- 
pears holy  men  prayed  in  a  kneeling  posture;  and 
then,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  produces  them  to  con- 
vince his  opponent,  that  he  is  acting  against  the 
authority  of  scripture,  and  the  practice  of  ancient 
saints.  His  opponent  replies.  These  cases  by  no 
means  settle  the  question  in  dispute.  They  are  suf- 
ficient, I  acknowledge,  to  prove  kneeling  before 
God  in  prayer  a  becoming  posture;  which  I  do  not 
pretend  to  deny:  but,  surely,  they  do  not  establish 
your  position,  that  it  is  the  only  lawful  attitude  of 


^06  LETTER  XIII. 

body  in  performing  this  duty.  To  make  out  your 
pointy  and  justify  the  censures  which  you  have  ta- 
ken the  liberty  to  pass  on  me  and  others,  M'hose 
practice  varies  from  yours;  you  ought,  at  least,  to 
prove  the  sacred  scriptures  to  contain  no  case,  in 
which  the  kneeling  posture  was  not  used  by  holy 
wen.  But  this  can  never  be  done.  From  experience 
I  find,  that,  by  using  a  different  attitude,  I  can  pray 
more  to  my  own  edification.  On  this  account,  I 
prefer  standing  before  the  mercy-seat  of  my  God; 
and,  in  the  practice  of  ancient  saints,  who  often 
used  this  posture,  I  find  a  complete  warrant  for  my 
conduct,  and  feel  assured  that,  if  the  heart  be  en- 
gaged in  prayer,  it  is  of  little  consequence  what  at- 
titude may  be  assumed  by  the  body.  It  is  obvious, 
which  of  the  two  disputants  would  have  the  best  in 
this  argument. 

Thus,  stands  the  matter  in  the  case  before  us. 
Although  the  advocates  of  immersion  could  adduce 
recorded  instances  of  baptism,  which  made  it  indu- 
bitable, that,  on  those  occasions,  this  mode  was 
used  by  the  apostles;  yet  it  would,  by  no  means,  be 
sufficient  to  prove  it  the  only  lawful  one,  and  the 
use  of  any  other  destructive  to  the  ordinance.  To 
support  their  exclusive  claims,  it  is  incumbent  on 
them,  at  least,  to  show  that  there  is  not  on  record, 
in  the  whole  New  Testament,  a  single  case  of  bap- 
tism, in  which  it  was  administered  by  a  different 
mode:  because  a  solitary  case  would  decisively  prove 
against  their  pretensions,  that  our  Lord  has  not  re- 


Cases  of  JlpostoUc  Baptism,  207 

stricted  the  administration  of  his  sacred  rite  to  any 
one  mode,  exclusive  of  all  others* 

I  make  this  statement,  not  to  concede  recorded 
cases  to  be  evidently  in  favour  of  immersion,  while 
only  one  or  two  can  be  urged  in  justification  of  our 
practice^  but  simply  to  give  you  a  correct  view  of 
the  question  in  debate,  and  to  let  you  see,  that  evin- 
cing the  validity  of  immersion,  is  utterly  insufficient 
to  prove  the  unlawfulness  of  all  other  modes  of  bap- 
tism. Neither  truth  nor  candour  requires  us  to 
make  such  a  concession:  because  the  cases  of  apos- 
tolic baptism  found  in  sacred  history,  furnish  pro- 
bable evidence  of  the  ordinance  having,  on  these 
occasions,  been  administered,  not  by  immersion,  but 
in  some  other  way. 

The  question  being  thus  fairly  stated,  let  us  pro- 
ceed to  examine  these  cases,  and  see  on  which  side 
the  evidence  preponderates j  whether  in  favour  of 
immersion,  or  in  favour  of  some  other  mode.  For 
the  sake  of  shortening  these  letters,  already  ex- 
tended far  beyond  my  original  intention,  I  shall  for- 
bear to  treat  of  the  baptism  of  John,  our  Lord's 
forerunner:  not,  however,  because  we  have  any  rea- 
son to  fear  his  practice  as  looking  at  us  with  an  un- 
friendly aspect,  but  for  this  plain  reason,  his  was 
not  Christian  baptism. 

In  support  of  this  assertion,  various  considera- 
tions, drawn  from  the  station  occupied  by  this  sin- 
gular man,  might  be  urged.  But  I  may  safely  wave 
them,  and  rest  the  truth  on  an  appeal  to  evidence 


308  BETTER   Xra. 

arising  from  a  fact  recorded  by  an  inspired  histo- 
rian. Paul,  he  informs  us,  rebaptized,  at  Ephesus, 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  certain  disciples 
who  had  been  previously  baptized  by  John,  Acts 
xix.  1 — 7.  Ihis  fact  presents  decisive  proof,  that 
John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism:  for,  if 
it  had  been,  where  was  the  necessity  or  propriety 
of  administering  again  the  sacred  rite,  to  persons 
who  had  already  received  it  agreeably  to  our  Lord's 
appointment? 

By  a  forced  construction  of  the  passage  referred 
to,  it  has  been  attempted  to  make  it  appear  these 
disciples  were  not  rebaptized.  The  fifth  verse,  it  is 
said,  must  be  considered  as  part  of  Paul's  address 
to  them;  and  as  stating  that,  as  John  taught  the 
applicants  for  his  baptism  to  «  believe  on  him  which 
should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ,"  he  vir- 
tually baptized  them  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Je- 
sus. But  examine,  my  brethren,  the  narrative,  and 
you  will  see  this  to  be  a  very  forced  construction 
indeed.  There  is  nothing  in  it  about  a  virtual  bap- 
tism. It  is  stated  expressly,  that  these  disciples 
"  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus;" 
not  virtually f  but  really:  and,  it  is  evident,  the  fifth 
verse  must  be  considered  as  the  words  of  the  histo- 
rian; for  the  expression  <*  When  they  heard  this,^^ 
proves  that  this  verse  cannot,  witliout  doing  vio- 
lence to  the  narrative,  be  made  a  part  of  Paul's 
address;  but  must  be  regarded  as  the  language  of 
the  historian,  informing  us  of  the  act  that  followed 


Cases  of  tlpostolic  Baptism*  209 

the  apostle's  instruction.  Paul  speaks  in  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth  verses:  and  the  explanation  which 
he  gave  of  the  nature  of  John's  haptism,  was  in- 
tended to  show  these  disciples,  how  it  imposed  an 
obligation  on  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesusj  whom  his  forerunner  John  taught  the 
people  to  expect,  and  duly  to  receive  at  his  mani- 
festation. The  historian  then  proceeds  to  declare 
the  effect  of  this  address;  that  these  men,  convinced 
of  their  duty,  readily  received  Christian  baptism 
at  the  hands  of  Paul.  Had  the  fifth  verse  been  in- 
tended as  part  of  the  apostle's  address,  his  inter- 
pretation of  the  instruction  given  by  John  to  the 
people,  would  not  have  been  interrupted  by  the 
phrase,  <*  When  they  heard  this,"  with  which  that 
verse  begins;  but  the  remainder  of  it,  excluding 
this  unnecessary  phrase,  would  have  been  immedi- 
ately connected  with  the  fourth  verse  by  means  of 
a  copulative  conjunction.  The  baptism  of  John  was 
**  a  baptism  of  repentance,"  (v.  4)  attended  with 
some  instruction  relative  to  the  promised  Messiah; 
he  did  not,  however,  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus:  but  Paul  and  his  fellow  apostles  bap- 
tized explicitly  in  this  divine  name.  See  v.  5. 

On  the  whole,  it  appears  evident,  these  disci- 
ples were  really  baptized  by  Paul,  although  they 
had  been  previously  baptized  by  John:  and  this  fact 
furnishes  decisive  evidence  of  the  baptism  esta- 
blished by  our  Lord  for  his  church  being  essenti- 

t2 


^10  1.ETTER  XIII. 

ally  different  from  that  administered  by  his  harbin- 
ger John. 

This  truth  settled,  we  proceed  to  examine  the 
cases  of  baptism  which  occurred  after  our  Lord's 
ascension  into  heaven;  without  stopping  to  inquire 
what  mode  was  used  by  John  in  administering  his 
rite.  Suffer  me,  however,  to  make  this  passing  ob- 
servation, that,  considering  the  great  multitudes 
which  flocked  to  him  for  baptism,  it  appears  highly 
improbable  that  even  he  baptized  by  immersion. 
See  Mat.  iii.  5,  6. 

The  first  instance  of  baptism  after  the  ascension 
of  our  Lord,  was  that  of  the  three  thousand  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  Concerning  them  it  is  expressly 
stated,  that  they  were  baptized  the  nery  day  on 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  the  apostles; 
"  Then  they  tliat  gladly  received  his  word  were  bap- 
tized: and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto  them 
about  three  thousand  souls."  In  contemplating  this 
ease,  the  question  occurs.  How  were  these  nume- 
rous converts  baptized?  Consult  the  sacred  narra- 
tive, and  you  will  find  it  silent  with  regard  to  the 
mode  used  on  this  occasion.  It  simply  states  that 
they  were  baptized:  and  we  are  left  to  infer  the 
mode  from  a  view  of  circumstances  connected  with 
the  case.     Let  us  consider  these  circumstances. 

It  was  about  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning,*  when 
Peter  began  to  preach.  We  may  reasonably  suppose 

*  Acts  ii.  15.     As  the  Jews  began  their  day  at  six  in  the  raorn- 
ing,  their  third  corresponds  with  our  ninth  hour. 


Cases  of  Jpostolic  BapVism.  211 

that,  on  this  ever-memorable  day,  ^vlicn  such  glo- 
rious success  attended  the  preacliing  of  a  once  cru- 
cified, but  now  exalted  Saviour,  he  and  his  fellow 
apostles  occupied  a  considerable  space  with  their 
discourses  to  the  listening  and  astonished  crouds. 
The  sacred  historian  has  not  given  us  the  whole 
even  of  Peter's  sermon.  Nothing  more  than  the 
great  outlines  of  it  are  recorded.  In  the  close  of 
his  narrative  we  find  it  written:  "  With  many  other 
words  did  he  (Peter)  testify  and  exhort,  saying, 
Save  yourselves  from  this  untoward  generation." 
We  may,  therefore,  conclude  it  to  have  been  twelve 
e'clock  before  the  apostles  ceased  preaching,  and 
proceeded  to  the  baptism  of  their  converts. 

The  administrators  of  the  ordinance,  on  this 
occasion,  were  in  number  twelve.  It  appears  from 
the  narrative,  we  confess,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
shed  down  upon  other  disciples  of  our  Lord,  beside 
his  apostles.  The  mere  reception  of  miraculous 
gifts,  however,  did  not  empower  those  who  had  not 
received  a  commission  to  that  effect,  to  administer 
sacred  rites.  Cornelius,  the  Roman  centurion,  and 
his  friends,  convened  at  his  house  when  Peter 
preached  the  gospel  to  them,  received  similar 
gifts;*  but  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  they  were, 
by  this  heavenly  donation,  invested  with  power  to 
baptize  and  administer  the  Lord's  supper.  Before 
a  man,  how  enriched  soever  by  gifts  spiritual  or 
miraculous,  can  lawfully  undertake  the  administra* 

*  Acts  X.  44,  46. 


212  LETTER   XIII. 

tion  of  these  Christian  ordinances,  he  must  receive 
a  regular  commission;  either  from  the  great  Head 
of  the  church,  or  from  the  hands  of  his  ministering 
servants  empowered  to  give  it  in  his  name. 

Desirous  of  increasing  the  number  of  persons 
officiating  on  this  occasion,  some  take  the  liberty  of 
supposing  the  apostles  were  assisted  by  a  part  of  the 
seventy,  whom  our  Lord  had  once  sent  out  to  preach 
the  gospel.  But  the  narrative  affords  no  ground  for 
such  a  supposition.  It  makes  but  one  distinction 
between  the  disciples:  it  divides  them  into  two 
classes;  one  formed  by  the  apostles,  and  the  other, 
by  the  rest  of  our  Saviour's  followers.  It  tells  us 
expressly,  that  Peter,  rising  to  preach,  stood  up 
"with  the  eleven."*  The  commission  of  the  seventy 
was  temporary:  it  expired  when  they  returned  and 
gave  to  Christ  an  account  of  its  fulfilment.  It  was 
a  commission  to  preach,  not  to  baptize:  the  account 
of  it  by  Luke  contains  not  a  word  about  baptism.j 
They  were  sent  out  before  Jesus  to  preach  in  cities 
and  places  which  he  intended  to  visit  in  person;  and, 
for  the  confirmation  of  their  doctrine,  they  were 
empowered  to  work  miracles.  While  our  Saviour 
remained  on  earth,  none  of  his  disciples,  except 
the  twelve  apostles  who  constantly  attended  on  his 
person,  were  authorized  to  administer  baptism:  and 
the  grand  commission  to  preach  and  to  baptize, 
given  just  before  his  ascension  into  heaven,  was  li- 
mited to  his  apostles,  now  reduced,  by  the  death  of 

•  Acts  ii.  14.  t  i-uke  k. 


Cases  of  tApostoUc  Baptism,  21S 

Judas,  to  eleven.*  Admitting,  then,  tlie  presence 
ef  some  of  the  seventy  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  we 
can  find  nothing,  either  in  the  sacred  narrative  of 
its  memorable  events,  or  in  the  tempoi*ary  cliarac- 
ter  as  preachers  sustained  by  these  men,  to  Avarrant 
the  supposition  that  they  assisted  in  the  administra- 
tion of  baptism  to  the  three  thousand  converts. 
But,  on  the  contrary,  as  their  commission  did  not 
invest  them  with  authority  to  baptize,  and  as  the 
commission  given  by  our  ascending  Redeemer,  was 
limited  to  the  apostles,  we  have  reasonable  ground 
for  concluding,  that  none  of  the  sevenfy  were  com- 
petent to  aid  in  administering  the  ordinance  on  this 
glorious  day. 

Now,  compare  the  number  baptized  with  the 
number  of  administrators  of  the  rite,  and  you  will 
see  it  highly  probable  that  immersion  was  not  used 
on  this  occasion.  Divide  the  former  by  the  latter, 
and  the  result  will  give  to  each  apostle  two  hundred 
and  fifty  subjects  of  baptism.  Allow  to  each  appli- 
cation of  the  ordinance,  by  immersion,  not  more 
than  three  minutes,  and  you  will  find,  even  suppo- 
sing the  apostles  took  no  rest  after  the  fatigue  of 
preaching,  but  proceeded  without  delay  to  adminis- 
ter baptism,  and  continued  in  the  duty  without  in- 
termission, that  the  baptizing  of  so  many  individu- 
als, must  have  employed  them  till  some  time  in  the 
morning  of  the  next  day.  I  ask,  then,  whether  it 
can  appear  credible  to  any  reasonable  person,  that 

*  Mat.  xxviii.  16—20.  Mark  xvi.  14— 18. 


21jjf  LETTER  XIII. 

the  apostles  consumed  so  many  of  their  precious 
hours  by  adopting  a  tedious  mode  of  applying  bap- 
tism, wlien,  by  using  a  more  expeditious  one,  the 
work  might  have  been  performed  in  a  much  less 
time?  It  is  highly  improbable.  The  very  circum- 
stances of  the  case  constrain  us  to  believe,  that 
these  holy  men,  i\ho,  to  use  the  expression  of  one 
of  them,  were  ^'  sent,  not  to  baytici>€,  but  to  preach 
the  gospel,"*  administered  baptism  on  this  memo- 
rable day,  in  a  way  more  convenient  and  expeditious 
than  immersion. 

Our  reasoning    has  hitherto  proceeded  on   a 
supposition  the  most  favourable  to  immersion;  on 
the  supposition  of  the  apostles  having  had   easy 
access   to  a  collection  or  stream  of  water  large 
enough  for  using  this  mode.   But,  it  is  a  well  known 
fact,  there  was  no  river  near  Jerusalem  of  depth 
sufficient  for  the  purpose.     To  get  rid  of  this  diffi- 
eulty,  some  have  supposed  that  the  apostles  were 
allowed  to  use  the  water  belonging  to  the  temple. 
The  supposition  is  unreasonable.     This  water  was 
appropriated  to  sacred  purposes,  and  accessible  only 
to  Priests  and  Levites:  and  it  cannot  be  imagined, 
with  any  shadow  of  probability,  that  those  who  had 
the  charge  of  it,  diverted  it  to  a  common  use,  by 
granting  the  apostles  liberty  to  baptize  with  it  in 
the  name  of  Jesus,  whom  the  priests  regarded  as 
an  impostor,  and  had  very  lately  crucified  as  a  blas- 
phemer.    And  although  we  suppose  some  of  these 

♦  1  C»r.  i  17. 


Cases  of  Apostolic  Baptism*  215 

bitter  enemies  of  our  Saviour  to  have  been,  on  tbis 
triumphant  day,  subdued  and  converted  to  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  yet  we  cannot  believe,  that  they  allowed 
the  apostles  and  their  converts  to  come  within  the 
sacred  enclosure  around  the  brazen  sea  and  lavers; 
because  it  was  lawful  only  to  themselves  and  the 
Levites  to  enter  that  court,  and  make  use  of  the 
consecrated  water.*  Years  elapsed  before  Jewish 
believers,  excessively  attached  to  the  rites  and  laws 
of  Moses,  could  receive  the  truth,  that  the  Sinai- 
covenant,  and  all  that  system  of  typical  worship  es- 
tablished by  it,  were  abolished  by  the  introduction 
of  Christianity. 

From  the  circumstances,  then,  of  this  case,  we 
may  fairly  conclude,  that  immersion  was  not  used 
in  baptizing  the  three  thousand  converts  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost. 

The  next  instance  of  baptism  is  that  of  the  E- 
thiopian  eunuch.  Acts  viii.  26 — iO.  This  is  sup- 
posed to  furnish  decisive  evidence  in  favour  of  im- 
mersion. He  went  down  into  the  water,  and  he 
came  up  out  of  the  water,  say  its  advocates^  and, 
with  an  air  of  triumph,  they  ask,  "Who  can  deny 
that  this  man  was  immersed? 

Allowing  eveiT^  thing  which  can  in  reason  be  de- 
manded, and  even  admitting  for  a  moment  that  the 
eunuch  was  immersed;  we  may,  with  perfect  confi- 
dence, retort  upon  our  opponents,  and  demand  of 

them,  how   this  case   can  support   their  position 

.  or- 

*  6ee  descriptioa  ef  the  temple  by  Brewn  aad  Frideatui. 


210  XETTER  XIII. 

Lose  not  sight,  my  brethren,  of  the  question  in  de- 
bate. It  is  not  whether  immersion  be  a  lawful 
mode,  but  whether  it  be  the  onhf  lawful  mode  of 
baptism:  for  those  who  denounce  our  conduct,  con- 
tend, not  only  that  their  practice  conforms  to  apos- 
tolic example,  but  also  that  ours  contravenes  divine 
authority.  We,  therefore,  demand,  Does  this  case  of 
baptism  afiirm  our  mode  to  be  unscriptural?  Does 
the  sacred  historian  state  it  as  a  fact,  that  the  apos- 
tles always  administered  the  ordinance  by  immer- 
sion? Does  he  pronounce  effusion,  washing,  and 
sprinkling,  to  be  so  repugnant  to  the  very  nature  of 
baptism  as  to  render  it  a  nullity?  Read  the  passage 
again,  and  you  will  discover  not  a  word  of  all  this. 
Allowing,  then,  the  eunuch  to  have  been  baptized 
by  immersion,  what  will  it  prove?  Simply,  that  this 
is  a  lawful  mode.  But,  assuredly,  it  cannot  prove 
it  to  be  the  only  lawful  way  in  which  baptism  can 
be  administered. 

Candor,  how^ever,  does  not  demand  from  us  this 
concession.  It  may  fairly  be  made  appear  proba- 
ble, that  immersion  was  not  used  on  this  occasion. 

Certain  it  is,  that  the  narrative  is  silent  with  re- 
gard to  the  particular  manner  in  which  the  eunuch 
w  as  baptized.  The  words  of  the  historian,  on  which 
so  much  reliance  is  placed  by  the  advocates  of  im- 
mersion, contain  no  statement  of  the  mode.  He  does 
indeed  say,  <*  They  wenl  down  into  the  water,  both 
PHILIP  AND  THE  EUNUCH.*'  But  was  this  act  of  go- 
down  into  the  water  baptism?  If  it  were,  then 


Cases  of  Jipostolie  Baptism.  217 

Viiilip)  as  well  as  the  eunuch,  was  baptized;  for  both 
performed  the  same  act.  If  it  were,  why  was  it  ad- 
ded by  the  historian  immediately  after  his  account 
of  this  act,  <<  And  he  baptized  liimT^  The  fact  is, 
and  it  will  appear  to  any  one  attentively  reading  the 
sacred  narrative,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Ethiopian 
was  subsequent  to  his  being  in  the  water:  both  lie  and 
the  Evangelist  were  in  the  water,  before  the  latter  ad- 
ministered the  ordinance  to  his  convert.  How  he  did 
it,  whether  by  plunging  his  whole  body  under  water, 
or  by  applying  a  small  portion  of  the  significant  ele- 
ment to  his  face,  we  are  not  informed:  and  to  deter- 
mine the  question,  we  must,  as  in  the  case  already 
examined,  reflect  upon  the  circumstances  of  this  bap- 
tism, and,  after  a  candid  and  impartial  view  of 
them,  decide  in  favor  of  that  mode  which  may  ap- 
pear to  be  supported  by  the  strongest  probable  evi- 
dence. 

What  were  the  circumstances  of  this  case?  The 
Ethiopian  was  on  a  long  journey,  returning  to  his 
own  country  from  Jerusalem,  whither  he  had  gone 
to  worship  the  true  God.  Philip  was  directed  by 
the  Spirit  to  meet  him  at  a  certain  place.  At  his  in- 
vitation, he  ascended  his  chariot,  and  ^reached  to  him 
the  gospel,  by  expounding  a  passage  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, referring  to  Christ,  which  this  man  happened  to 
be  then  reading.  The  eunuch  believed.  Seeing  water 
near  the  road,  he  expressed  a  desire  to  be  baptized: 
and,  on  the  profession  of  his  faith,  Philip  yielded  to  his 
request,  and  administered  to  him  the  Christian  or- 

u 


218  LETTER  XIII. 

dinance.  Now,  in  order  to  a  decent  administration 
of  baptism,  it  was  natural  for  them  to  descend  from 
the  chariot,  and  go  to  the  water.  It  would  have  been 
unbecoming  the  humility  required  on  such  an  occa- 
sion, to  have  remained  in  the  chariot,  and  directed 
a  servant  to  bring  the  element  to  them.  As  the  an- 
cients wore  sandals,  not  shoes,  it  was  no  inconve- 
nience to  them  to  walk  through  any  small  streaip: 
we  may,  therefore,  grant  to  our  brethren  the  most 
that  can  be  reasonal)ly  requested — that  Philip  and 
his  convert  went  into  the  water.* 

But  to  conclude,  from  this  single  circumstance, 
that  the  eunuch  was  baptized  by  immersion,  will 
appear  unwarrantable,  if  we  impartially  consider 
the  other  circumstances  connected  with  this  case. 
They  make  it  probable  a  more  convenient  mode  was 
used.  Before  such  a  conclusion  be  drawn,  it  ought, 
at  least,  to  be  proved,  that  the  water  was  deep 
enough  for  immersion.  This,  however,  cannot  be 
done.  The  manner  in  which  the  Ethiopian  speaks  of 
it,  intimates  the  contrary  to  have  been  the  Imct:  for 
he  does  not  say,  See,  here  is  a  river,  or  here  is  deep 

*  The  prepositions  uc  and  m,  here,  and  in  the  next  verse,  render- 
ed into  and  out  of  the  water,  frequently  signify  u7ito  and  Jrom,  as 
every  one  must  allow  who  understands  the  Greek  language;  and 
tlius  they  are  often  used  in  the  style  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
particularly  of  Luke:  as  for  example,  tic  signifies  W7i^o  in  Matth.  xv. 
£4.  Luke  iv.  5.  and  vi.  12.  and  ix.  28.  Acts  xiv.  21.  and  Colos.  i.  20. 
And  6»  signifies /row,  Luke  xx.  4.  John  xix.  12.  Acts  xiv.  8.  and 
X\,  21,  29-  i^nJ  xvii.  3,  31.  and  xxvii,  34.     Guyses  note  on  tliis  place 


Cases  of  tRpostoUc  Baptism.  219 

water;  but,  See^  here  is  xvater:  implying  that,  fop 
the  due  administration  of  baptism,  is  required  only 
water,  and  that  a  small  quantity  will  answer  the 
purpose,  as  well  as  a  greater.  This  interpretation 
receives  confirmation  from  the  testimony  of  travel- 
lers, who  represent  this  water  as  a  spring,  issuing 
from  the  foot  of  a  mountain.* 

Besides,  if  the  water  had  been  sufficiently  deep, 
other  circumstances  forbid  the  supposition  of  im- 
mersion having  been  used.  Is  it  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose, that  this  man,  while  prosecuting  a  long  jour- 
ney, was  plunged  into  the  water  with  all  his  clothes 
on,  and  subjected  to  the  inconvenience  of  changing 
them  in  a  desert  place^  when  a  different  mode,  such 
as  was  used  in  baptizing  the  three  thousand  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  would  have  answered  the  purpose? 
Surely  this  would  be  going  against  probability. 

The  Evangelist,  in  his  mode  of  administering 
this  Christian  rite,  we  presume,  happily  alluded,  as 
Henry  observes,  to  a  passage  in  Isaiah,  which  the 
ennuch  had  doubtless  just  read;  for  it  stands  in  the 

*  Acts  viii.  36.  Ti  vcToig,  a  certain  tvatery  seems  to  be  of  diminu- 
tive signification,  and  to  intimate,  that  it  was  not  water  of  any  consi- 
derable depth:  and  Jerome,  Sandys,  and  other  travellers,  speak  of 
it  as  a  certain  spring  or  fountain,  that  rises  at  the  foot  of  a  mountain 
in  the  tribe  of  Judah  or  Benjamin,  whose  waters  are  sucked  in  by 
the  same  ground  that  produces  them;  and  they  report  that  this  was 
the  place  where  the  eunuch  was  baptized  by  Philip.  Vide  HieroH. 
de  Locis.  Hebr.  pag.  41.  and  Sandy's  Travels,  lib.  ii.  p.  142. 

Guyse's  note  on  this  place. 


320  LETTiiR  XIII. 

prophet  but  a  few  verses  before  the  two  specified  by 
the  historian  as  being  under  the  eye  of  this  man, 
when  Philip  came  up  to  his  chariot.  lie  was  then 
reading  the  7th  and  8th  verses  of  the  53th  chapter 
of  Isaiah;  the  passage  to  which  we  refer,  is  the  last 
verse  of  tlie  chapter  next  preceding.  The  words 
are  these:  **  So  shall  he  (Christ)  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions." Howhas  this  prophecy  been  fulfilled?  Christ 
has  sprinkled  many  nations  with  his  atoning  bloody 
and  with  the  influence  of  his  Holy  Spirit  shed  down 
upon  them:  and  these  nations  have,  by  his  minister- 
ing servants,  been  sprinkled  with  baptismal  water, 
as  an  appointed  visible  &ign  of  the  blessing  so  be- 
stowed on  them. 

Considering,  then,  all  the  circumstances  of  this 
case,  I  ask  you,  my  brethren,  whether  candor  re- 
quire us  to  yield  it  favoring  immersion;  and  whe- 
ther it  do  not  appear  propable  the  eunuch  was  bap- 
tized in  a  more  convenient  way,  as  by  applying  wa- 
ter to  his  face?  In  my  view,  the  latter  corresponds 
with  circumstances  much  better  than  the  former: 
and,  consequently,  the  conceding  of  this  case  to  our 
opponents,  by  some  who  do  not  admit  their  exclu- 
sive claims,  seems  to  have  resulted  from  want  of 
careful  investigation. 

The  baptism  of  Paul  comes  next  in  order.  Acts 
ix.  17,  18.  The  circumstances  attending  his  case 
make  strongly  against  immersion.  In  the  narrative, 
we  find  no  intimation  of  his  having  been  conducted 
to  a  place  convenient  for  using  this  mode:  but,  on 


Cases  of  Jlpostolic  Baptism,  221 

the  contrary,  we  discover  several  circumstances  to 
render  it  probable,  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  very 
apartment  in  which  Ananias  found  him  sitting,  when 
he  delivered  to  him  his  message  from  Jesus  Christ: 
♦«  And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had 
been  scales;  and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and 
arose,  and  was  bapti'zed.  The  narrative,  you  will 
observe,  is  rapid,  and  implies  strongly,  that  bap- 
tism was  administered  to  him  immediately  after  the 
restoration  of  his  sight.  During  three  days,  he  had 
been  blind,  and  had  taken  neither  meat  nor  drink: 
(v.  9)  it  cannot,  therefore,  be  doubted  that,  when 
Ananias  addressed  him,  he  was  sitting  or  lying  dowu 
in  his  apartment.  Now,  the  narrative,  concise  and 
rapid  as  it  is,  notices  the  change  made  in  his  pos- 
ture previously  to  his  baptism:  "He  arose,  and  was 
baptized:*'  and  it  informs  us  of  another  circumstance 
worthy  of  remark,  that  notwithstanding  his  long 
fasting,  which,  together  with  anguish  of  mind,  must 
have  weakened  him  greatly,  he  was  baptized  before 
he  had  taken  any  nourishment,*  for^  immediately 
subsequent  to  the  account  of  his  baptism,  the  nar- 
rative states,  "  And  when  he  had  received  meat,  he 
was  strengthened.'*  But  not  the  slightest  Jiint  is 
given  of  his  having  been  conducted  by  Ananias  even 
from  one  apartment  to  another,  for  the  purpose  of 
baptizing  him;  much  less,  of  his  having  been  led  out 
of  the  house  to  some  river  or  large  collection  of 
water,  for  the  sake  of  immersion. 

u  3 


222  tKTTER    XIII. 

In  view  of  these  cii-ciimstances,  can  it  be  ima- 
gined, that  this  case  of  baptism  was  performed  by 
immersion?  If  the  ordinance  had  been  thus  admi- 
nistered, would  not  the  historian,  who  notices  the 
act  of  rising,  liave  given,  at  least,  some  hints  of 
more  important  circumstances?  Would  he  not  have 
hinted  at  some  preparation  made  for  a  mode  of  bap- 
tism so  inconvenient  to  one  in  Paul's  situation? 
Would  he  not  have  given  some  intimation  of  his 
having  been  conducted  by  Ananias  from  the  house 
in  which  he  found  him,  to  some  other  place,,  or  from 
one  apartment  to  another,  that  water  sufficient  for 
immersing  him  might  be  obtained?  Can  it,  then,  in 
the  total  absence  of  the  slightest  hints  of  this  kintl, 
be  credited,  that  Paul,  in  such  circumstances,  so 
enfeebled  by  long  fasting  and  bitter  distress  of  mind, 
was,  previously  to  his  taking  any  nourishment,  led 
forth  by  Ananias  to  a  river  or  other  large  collection  of 
water,  for  the  purpose  of  administering  baptism  to 
him  by  immersion?  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose, 
if  this  mode  had  been  used,  Ananias  would,  before 
proceeding  to  baptize  his  convert,  have  directed 
him  to  sit  down  to  meat,  in  order  to  recover  a  little 
strength?  But  the  reverse  took  place:  and,  there- 
fore, in  view  of  this  fact,  and  other  circumstances, 
^e  conclude,  that  Paul  was  not  immersed,  but  bap- 
tized in  a  way  more  suitable  to  his  enfeebled  con- 
dition. 

The  baptism  of  the  Roman  centurion  and  his 
friends,  stands  next  on  record.  Acts  x.  44?— i8.  No- 


1 


Cases  of  Aiwstolic  BaptisDu  223 

thing  to  favour  immersion  can  be  found  in  tliis  case. 
The  sacred  historian  gives  not  the  slightest  hint  of 
their  having  been  led  to  some  river  or  large  col- 
lection of  water.  On  tlie  contrary,  it  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  narrative,  that  these  first  fruits 
of  the  Gentile-world  were  baptized  in  Cornelius's 
house,  in  which  they  were  assembled  to  hear  Peter 
preach  the  gospel,  and  where  the  Holy  Ghost  fell 
on  them;  and  that,  for  the  administration  of  the 
ordinance,  water  was  brought  into  the  apartment 
which  they  occupied.  "  Can  any  man,"  exclaimed 
Peter,  astonished  at  the  miracle  wrought  in  their 
favour,  "  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we?"  Weigh,  my  brethren, 
the  apostle's  expression:  Can  any  man  forbid  iva- 
ter^  Does  the  form  of  this  question  favour  the  idea 
of  Cornelius  and  his  friends  having  been  conducted  to 
some  stream  or  river?  May  we  not  fairly  infer  from 
it,  that  water  was  brought  to  them  in  some  vessel,  and 
that  they  were  baptized  by  an  application  of  the 
element  to  their  faces?  The  historian's  silence  about 
any  change  of  place,  and  the  form  of  Peter's  ex>- 
pression,  while  they  discountenance  the  supposition 
of  the  use  of  immersion  on  this  occasion,  furnish  a 
degree  of  probable  evidence,  that  the  ordinance  was 
administered  in  some  more  easy  and  convenient  way. 
Nor  does  the  case  of  Lydia  favour  immersion.* 
She  was  at  the  river's  side,  when  Paul  preached  the 

Acts  xvi.  13 — 15. 


224  LETTER    XIII. 

^spcl  to  her  and  other  women,  assembled  in  a 
proseucha*  or  an  oratory:  and,  if  she  were  baptized 
there,  we  confess  there  was  no  want  of  water  suffi- 
cient for  the  use  of  this  mode.  Let  us  concede  it 
as  a  fact,  that  the  ordinance  was  administered  to 
her  at  the  river's  side,  and  see  what  will  be  the  re- 
sult of  a  fair  examination  of  all  the  circumstances 
of  her  case.  This  woman  went  thither,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  bathing,  but  to  perform  her  devotions 
in  the  proseucha:  and,  as  her  purpose  in  going  to 
that  place  did  not  require  it,  she  took  no  change  of 
apparel,  either  for  herself,  or  for  her  household. 
How,  then,  were  they  baptized?  Because  the  ordi- 
nance was  administered  at  the  side  of  a  river,  shall 
we  infer  that  they  were  immersed?  What!  did  the 
apostle  immerse  them,  although  they  had  no  change 
©f  raiment  at  hand?  Was  this  woman,  together  with 
her  family,  sent  back  to  the  city  completely  wet,  to 
be  gazed  at  by  every  one  that  saw  them  in  such  a 
plight!  Who  can  believe  that  Paul  placed  them  in 
a  condition  so  ridiculous,  when,  by  the  use  of  ano- 
ther mode  of  baptism,  such  as  was  adopted  on  oc- 
casions already  considered,  it  was  so  easy  to  avoid 
it?  To  get  over  this  difficulty,  it  may  be  supposed^ 
that  some  one  of  the  family  was  dispatched  to  the 

*  What  is  translated,  **  WJiere  prayer  was  -wont  to  be  madey^ 
means  a  Jewish  proseucha,  or  place  made  for  prayei*.  It  was  an 
open  court  or  enclosure,  like  those  about  the  temple  at  Jerusalem; 
and  it  appears  from  history  that,  in  many  heathen  countries  where 
the  Jews  resided,  they  built  theta  for  private  devotions.  Prideaux, 
vol.  i.  p.  387 — 9. 


Cases  of  t^ipostolic  Baptism.  225 

city,  for  a  change  of  apparel  for  each  candidate  for 
baptism.  But,  my  brethren,  the  narrative  affords 
no  ground  for  this  supposition.  The  historian  speaks 
not  a  >vord  about  any  person  liaving  been  sent  on  such 
an  errand;  nor  does  lie  give  tlie  slightest  hint,  frojii 
which  it  can  be  fairly  inferred  that  a  change  of  rai- 
ment was  procured.  It  is  also  worthy  of  remark, 
that  it  does  not  appear  there  was  any  convenient 
place,  in  which  females  could,  with  decency,  make 
a  change  of  their  dress.  The  JcAvish  proseuchfe 
were  open  courts  or  enclosures,  accessible  to  men 
as  well  as  to  women;  and  not  at  all  fit  for  perform- 
ing an  act  requiring  so  much  concealment. 

Taking  all  the  circumstances  of  this  case  into 
riew,  we  are  constrained  to  give  it  as  our  judgment, 
that  Lydia  and  her  household  were  not  baptized  by 
immersion. 

The  baptism  next  occurring,  and  the  last  men- 
tioned in  the  Acts  of  the  apostles,  is  that  of  the 
jailor  and  his  family.  Acts  xvi.  This  case,  fairly 
considered,  presents  strong  evidence  against  im- 
mersion. Paul  and  Silas  were  bleeding  with  stripes 
just  inflicted;  the  city  was  thrown  into  confusion  and 
consternation  by  an  earthquake;  the  violence  of  its 
shock  was  so  great  as  to  force  open  the  prison-doors, 
and  to  loose  the  prisoners'  bands;  and  it  occurred  at 
midnight.  These  circumstances  plainly  forbid  the 
supposition,  that  the  jailor  conducted  his  heavenly 
instructers  to  a  river  for  the  purpose  of  receiving, 
for  himself  and  family,  baptism  by  immersion.  This 


226  LETTER  XIII. 

would  have  been  a  hazardous  deed:  for  had  be  been 
seen  leading  through  (he  streets,  at  midnight,  his 
prisoners,  whom  he  was  charged  to  keep  safely,  it 
might  have  cost  him  his  life. 

Discarding  a  supposition  so  extravagant,  let  us 
observe  attentively  the  sacred  narrative.  From  the 
narrative,  then,  it  is  evident,  that  the  Philippian 
jailor  brought  Paul  and  Silas  out  of  that  inner  pri- 
son, where  he  had  made  their  feet  fast  in  the  stocks 
to  some  other  apartment;  that  in  this  apartment  he 
made  his  solemn  inquiry,  and  they  answered  it  by 
preaching  the  gospel  to  him  and  to  others.  It  like- 
wise appears  from  the  narrative,  that  in  this  room, 
after  having  washed  their  stripes,*  he  and  his  fa- 
mily were  baptized;  and  that,  subsequently  to  the 
administration  of  the  sacred  ordinance,  he  conduct- 
ed them  to  his  house,  and  set  <<  meat  before  them." 

In  view  of  these  circumstances,  we  ask,  How 
were  these  heathen  baptized?  No  river  flowed 
through  the  prison.  Yet,  say  the  advocates  of  an 
exclusive  mode,  they  were  immersed;  and,  that  wa- 
ter sufficient  may  not  be  wanting,  they  provide  a 
bath  in  this  prison!  Here  they  resort  to  mere  sup- 
position, for  which  the  sacred  liistorian  furnishes  no 
ground.  We  have  carefully  read  his  account,  but 
cannot  learn  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  sup- 
posed fact.     Certain  it  is,  he  speaks  not  a  word 

*  **  ffe  took  them,"  (verse  33)  means  not  that  he  conducted 
them  to  some  other  apartment;  for  that  act  is  expressed  by  another 
word,  Ife  brought  them  out:  (verse  30)  but  »nly  his  proceeding  to 
wash  their  stripes. 


Cases  of  t^lposloUc  Baptism,  227 

about  it:  nor  is  tliere,  in  any  of  those  other  cases 
where  a  hath  must  be  provided  in  order  to  surmount 
the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  immersion,  any  men- 
tion made  of  one,  or  the  slightest  hint  given  to  lead 
to  such  a  supposition. 

Surely,  such  unauthorized  suppositions  are  not 
allowable,  in  supporting  an  opinion  which  not  only 
asserts  the  lawfulness  of  immersion,  but  denounces 
every  other  mode  of  administering  baptism  as  ut- 
terly unlawful;  and  thus  reduces  to  the  state  of  un- 
baptized  persons,  atleast,  more  than  half  the  Chris- 
tian world,  and  deprives  myriads  and   myriads  of 
the  seal  of  that  covenant,  which  is  all  their  salva- 
tion, and  all  their  desire!    Surely,  an  opinion   at- 
tended with  consequences  so  serious  and  important, 
and  fixing  on  the  great  body  of  professing  Chris- 
tians a  reproach,  similar  in  import  to   that  in  the 
mouth  of  a  Jew  when  he  called  the  heathen  uncir- 
cumcised,    should   disdain   receiving   support  from 
mere  supposition;  a  suppobition  too  which  can  find 
no  countenance  from  the  passage  it  proposes  to  ex- 
plain! 

Abandoning  suppositions  not  warranted  by  the 
narrative,  let  us  determine  the  question  by  a  candid 
regard  to  the  circumstances  which  it  presents  for 
consideration.  The  jailor,  as  already  observed, 
brought  Paul  and  Silas  out  of  the  inner  prison  int« 
another  apartment;  and,  so  far  as  a  judgment  can 
be  formed  from  the  narrative  and  the  circumstances 
before  noticed,  it  appears,  that  in  this  apartmint 


328  LETTER  XIII. 

the  ordinance  was  administered.  The  conclusion, 
then,  seems  highly  probahle,  that  this  heathen  and 
his  family  were  baptized,  not  by  immersion,  but  in 
some  other  mode,  more  convenient,  and  better  cor- 
responding to  the  condition  of  the  apostles  and  their 
converts,  and  to  the  circumstances  of  time  and 
place.  This  conclusion  receives  additional  proof, 
when  we  reflect  that  the  jailor  brought  his  prison- 
ers out  of  the  inner  prison  to  another  apartment, 
not  for  the  purpose  of  being  baptized,  but  in  order 
to  propose  that  all-important  question  which  so 
greatly  agitated  his  mind.  His  grand  inquiry  was 
made  to  them  after  he  had  changed  their  apartment: 
He  "  brought  them  out,  and  said.  Sirs,  what  must 
I  do  to  be  saved?"  This  apartment  to  which  they 
were  conducted,  was  not  selected  because  it  contain- 
ed water  for  the  administration  of  baptism;  for  the 
jailor,  having  as  yet  neither  proposed  his  question, 
nor  received  an  answer  to  it,  could  then  have  enter- 
tained no  idea  of  being  baptized. 

On  the  whole,  considering  that  this  heathen  and 
his  family  were  baptized  at  midnight,  not  in  a  river, 
but  in  an  apartment  of  the  prison;  that  this  apart- 
ment had  been  selected  with  no  view  to  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism;  and  that  the  supposition  of  a  bath 
having  been  used  for  the  purpose,  is  utterly  unwar- 
rantable: we  may  fairly  conclude  that  they  were  not 
immei^sedf  but  baptized  by  applying  water  to  the  face. 

I  have  now  examined  the  several  cases  of  bap- 
tism on  record,  which  occurred  after  the  ascension 


The  term  baptize  examined.  229 

9f  our  Lord  into  heaven:  and  I  confidently  appeal 
to  the  candid  reader,  whether  it  does  not  appear, 
from  a  fair  and  impartial  survey  of  the  circum- 
stances attending  them,  that  these  baptisms  were 
performed,  not  by  immersion,  but  in  some  other 
mode,  as  washing,  sprinkling,  or  effusion.  The  case 
of  the  eunuch  has  been,  incautiously  and  without 
necessity,  given  up  as  being  decisive  in  favour  of 
immersion:  but  a  careful  inquiry  into  the  circum- 
stances of  his  case,  renders  it  probable  that  he  was 
not  immersed. 


LETTER  XIV. 

.Yo  precept  in  favour  of  immersion  as  an  exclusive 
mode, — The  origiiial  word,  baptize,  examined. 

Christian  Brethren, 

In  my  last  was  submitted  to  your  consideration, 
a  fair  investigation  of  the  circumstances  connected 
w  itfi  the  several  cases  of  apostolic  baptism,  recorded 
in  ihat  part  of  our  inspired  volume  which  is  styled, 
T  e  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  result  was,  that, 
so  iap  as  a  judgment  can  be  formed  from  the  history 


230  LETTER   XIV. 

of  them,  it  does  not  appear,  in  a  single  case,  to  be 
certain,  or  even  probable,  that  immersion  was  used 
in  administering  this  religious  rite. 

But,  to  all  our  reasoning  on  these  cases,  the  ad- 
vocates of  immersion  will  object,  that  it  must  be 
false,  because  this  mode  is  enjoined  by  positive 
precept.  Immersion  enjoined  by  positive  precept! 
Where?  Let  the  precept  be  produced,  and  we  sub- 
mit; we  shall  renounce  our  reasoning  on  the  subject, 
and  acknowledge  our  error.  And  where,  my  bre- 
thren, do  you  imagine  this  positive  precept  is  to  be 
found; — this  precept,  which  is  to  set  aside  the  com- 
bined testimony  of  all  the  circumstances  that  have 
been  examined  and  compared  together,  in  order  to 
ascertain  apostolic  practice  in  relation  to  baptism? 
Would  you  not  expect  to  fmd  it  so  plain  and  express, 
that  "he  who  runs  may  read  it?"  Could  you  ima- 
gine this  boasted  precept  couched  in  a  si7igle  word, 
the  meaning  of  which  has  been  a  subject  of  dispute 
among  the  learned  for  several  centuries?  Yet, 
strange  as  it  may  appear,  this  is  fact!  The  only  pre- 
cept which  can  be  produced,  or  which  any  pretend 
to  offer,  is  the  Greek  term  BxttIk^u,  which  our  En- 
glish bible  properly  translates  Baptize, 

It  is  contended  that  this  word  signifies  to  im- 
merse. That  it  sometimes  bears  this  signification, 
is  not  denied.  It  has,  however,  we  maintain,  other 
significations:  it  signifies  to  wash,  to  pour,  and  to 
sprinkle.  But,  say  the  advocates  of  an  exclusive 
mode,  the  primary  sense  of  the  word,  is  to  immerse. 


The  term  baptize  examined,  231 

This  is  irrelevant  to  the  point  in  dispute.  Keep,  my 
brethren,  the  question  in  view.  What  is  it?  Not 
whether  immersion  be  a  lawful  mode  of  baptism. 
Were  this  the  question,  an  endeavour  to  prove  that 
the  word  primarily  signifies  to  immerse,  would  be 
pertinent.  But  this  is  not  the  question:  it  is  one 
wholly  different;  namely.  Whether  immersion  be 
the  only  lawful  mode  in  which  baptism  can  be  ad- 
ministered. This  being  the  question,  what  can  it 
avail  to  prove  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  to 
be  that  of  immersion,  while,  like  a  thousand  other 
terms,  it  has  several  different  significations?  Were 
our  brethren  able  to  demonstrate  their  point  in  the 
most  satisfactory  manner,  it  would  still  be  fair  to 
ask.  Which  of  its  several  significations  does  the 
word  bear  in  connexion  with  Christian  baptism? 
For  words,  it  is  well  known  to  those  who  have  stu- 
died the  nature  of  human  language,  undergo,  in  the 
course  of  years,  great  alterations  in  their  meaning; 
and  sometimes  they  obtain  current,  popular  signi- 
fications very  different  from  their  original  import. 
Thus,  in  our  own  language,  the  word  to  let  has  two 
opposite  meanings.  It  signifies  to  permit:  as.  Let 
me  do  it;  and  it  signifies  to  hinder:  "For  the  mys- 
tery of  iniquity  doth  already  work:  only  he  who 
now  letteth  will  ?ef,  until  he  be  taken  out  of  the  way." 
The  word  church  signifies  both  a  Christian  society, 
and  a  building  consecrated  to  religious  worship. 
The  term  house  is  used  in  sacred  scripture  as  the 
name  both  of  a  common  dwelling,  and  of  the  church 


232  LETTER   Xiy. 

of  Christ.*  The  Greek  word  ^etpojonx,  properly  oi 
primarily  signifies  a  stretching  out  of  the  hand:  yet  the 
eommon  meaning  of  it  is  an  election  of  magistrates. 
The  ancient  way  of  choosing  them  was  by  stretch- 
ing out  the  hand,  and  hence  called  x^tpolouec:  but  af- 
terwards the  word  was  applied  to  any  election  of 
rulers,  without  regard  to  the  mode.  Ek»a»)o-/«,  Church, 
signifies,  in  general,  an  assembly  of  people:  and  ac- 
cordingly, in  the  New  Testament,  it  means  both  an 
assembly  lawfully  convened  by  the  civil  magistrate: 
as  in  Acts  xix.  39;  and  one  unlawfully  gathered:  as 
in  Acts  xix.  33,  40,  where  it  signifies  what  we 
call  a  moh.  But  most  generally  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  mean  by  this  word  the  church  of 
God;  that  holy  society,  separated,  by  his  word  and 
Spirit,  from  the  rest  of  mankind,  for  his  worship 
and  glory. 

This  list  of  terms,  having  various  significations, 
might  be  greatly  enlarged:  but  these  few  will  serve 
as  a  specimen  to  show  how  words  depart  from  their 
original  meaning,  and  sometimes  acquire,  in  com- 
mon use,  a  sense  that  loses  their  primary  ideas. 

Admitting,  then,  it  could  be  fairly  proved,  that 
;b<««-7<^«,  baptize,  in  its  primary  sense,  means  to  im- 
merse, it  would  not  settle  the  dispute;  it  would  not 
prove  immersion  to  be  the  only  lawful  mode  of  bap- 
tizing, and  this  term  to  contain  a  positive  precept, 
enjoining  the  use  of  it.  The  question  would  still 
occur.  Which  of  its  several  significations  does  the 
word  bear  in  connexion  with  Christian  baptism? 

*  Ileb.  iii..  4 — 6. 


The  term  baptize  examined.  233 

And,  surely,  it  is  unreasonable  to  contend,  that  a 
positive  precept  in  favour  of  immersion,  is  couched 
in  a  single  term,  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of 
which  a  question  of  this  kind  may,  with  the  great- 
est propriety,  he  proposed;  because  an  investigation 
might   show  it,  in  connexion  with  baptism,  to  be 
used,  not  in  its  primary,  but  secondary  sense.    To 
decide  this  question,  an  appeal  must  be   made  to 
apostolic  practice:  and,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that, 
on  every  occasion,  the  apostles  baptized  by  immer- 
sion, the  primary  sense  of  the  word  will  be  little 
better  than  a  rotten  pillar  in  a  building:  It  is  ut- 
terly unable  to  bear  the  weight  laid  upon  it.    It  can 
never  prove,  that  every  mode  varying  from  the  fa- 
vourite one  for  which  it  is  pleaded,  renders  baptism 
void,  and  that  all  who  do  not  use  it  are  unbaptized 
persons.     This  appeal  has  been  made  to  apostolic 
practice:  and  the  result  is  entirely  unfavourable  to 
immersion  as  an  exclusive  mode.     There  is  not  a 
single  case  of  baptism  on  record,  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  from  which  the  use  of  immersion  by  these 
inspired  guides,  can  be  inferred  with  certainty,  or 
even  with  a  high  degree  of  probability:  much  less 
can  it  be  sliown,  that  the  apostles  always  adminis- 
tered baptism  in  this  way,  and  never  used  any  other. 
Were  we,  then,  to  yield  the  point,  and  allow  BxttV^iu, 
baptize,  in  its  primary  signification,  to  mean  to  im- 
merse, our  practice  would  still  be  defensible:  be- 
cause apostolic  example  proves  this  word,  in  con- 
nexion with  Curistian  baptism^  not  restrained  to  its 
x2 


^0%  LETTER  XIV. 

primary  sense;  and  not  only  ^varranting  Ihc  use  of 
washing,  pouring,  or  sprinkling;  but  that  it  is  ra- 
ther to  be  taken  in  one  of  these  meanings,  than  in 
that  of  immersion. 

But  we  are  under  no  necessity  of  yielding  this 
point.  Much  might  be  said  to  show,  that  to  immerse 
is  not  the  primary  meaning  of  this  controverted 
word.=*  It  is,  however,  unnecessary  to  perplex  your 
minds  by  entering  into  this  difficult  philological  in- 
vestigation. From  the  observations  already  made 
you  may  perceive,  that  the  dispute  is  not  to  be  set- 
tled by  determining  the  primary  meaning  of  this 
word;  and  that,  at  last,  we  must  appeal  to  apostolic 
practice,  in  order  to  ascertain,  whether,  in  connex- 
ion with  Christian  baptism,  the  term  be  restricted 
to  one  particular  sense,  or  may  be  considered  as 
comprehending  its  several  meanings,  and  authori- 
zing different  modes  of  applying  baptismal  water. 
I  shall,  therefore,  wave  this  discussion. 

That  you  may  not  be  misled  by  any  show  of  ar- 
gument on  this  much  debated  word,  I  shall  state 
what  ought  to  be  proved  with  respect  to  its  mean- 

*  Mr.  Williams,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Booth,  has  written  largely,  to 
prove  that  the  primary  signification  of  this  term,  is  to  tinge ^  to  dyey 
to  xvet;  and  that  to  immerse  is  a  secoiidary  idea.  The  learned  and 
justly  celebrated  Doct.Owen  asserts:  I.  **  It  doth  not  signify  properly 
to  dipt  ov  plunge;  for  that  in  Greek  is  i/uCetTrree  and  i/uSaTrri^o). 
2.  It  no  where  signifies  to  dip,  but  as  a  mode  of,  and  in  order  to, 
washing.  3.  It  signifies  the  dipping  of  2ijingery  or  the  least  touch 
of  the  water,  and  not  plunging  the  whole.  4.  It  signifies  to  wash 
also  in  all  good  authors."    Owen's  Discourses,  p.  581. 


The  term  baptize  examined,  235 

ing,  in  order  to  support  the  exclusive  claims  to  bap- 
tism founded  on  it.  One  of  these  three  points  should 
be  established  by  fair  and  decisive  proofs:  1.  Either 
that  the  word  nerer  had  any  other  signification  than 
to  immerse; — 3.  Or  that  this  is  the  only  sense,  in 
which  it  is  used  by  the  New  Testament-writers; — 
Or  that,  in  connexion  with  Christian  baptism,  it 
has,  by  divine  authority 9  been  limited  to  this  single 
meaning.  Now,  if  either  of  these  points  could  be 
fairly  made  out,  the  question  would  be  decided  in 
favour  of  immersion. 

Let  it,  however,  be  observed,  that  the  question 
would  then  be  decided  only  in  favour  of  immersion 
generally,  not  in  favour  of  a  total  immei'sion.  To 
immerse  signifies  to  dip  any  thing  into  water;  which 
may  be  done  either  partially  or  totally.  If  I  dip  my 
finger,  or  hand,  or  foot,  or  body,  I  immerse  it.  The 
proving,  therefore,  of  either  of  the  particulars  spe- 
cified, would  only  evince  that  immersion  was  to  be 
used  in  baptism,  not  that  the  whole  body  was  to  be 
plunged  under  water:  and  room  would  still  be  left 
for  the  question,  Is  the  whole  body,  or  a  part  of  it, 
to  be  immersed? — to  decide  which,  it  would  be  ne- 
cessary to  consult  the  practice  of  the  apostles:  and, 
if  it  could  not  be  shown  that  they  immersed  the 
^hole  body,  the  immersion  of  a  particular  part 
would  be  as  lawful  a  mode  of  baptism,  as  covering 
every  particle  of  it  with  water. 

We  are  confident,  that  neither  of  these  points 
can  be  established. 


236  LETTER   XIV. 

1.  It  cannot  be  proved,  that  B«9r7/^«  has  but  one 
meaning,  and  that  it  always  signifies  to  immerse. 

Unquestionably  it  signifies  to  wash,  as  well  as  to 
immerse,     I  am  acquainted  with  no  Greek  Lexicon 
which  does  not  give  the  word  this  meaning.     That 
learned  man,  that  profound  divine.  Doctor  Owen, 
after  citing  in  favour  of  this  signification,  the  au- 
thority of  Scapula,  Stephanus,  and  Stiidas,  whom 
he  styles  the  p^eat  treasury  of  the  Greek  tongue, 
makes  the  following  declaration:  "  I  must  say,  and 
will  make  it  good,  that  no  honest  man  who  under- 
stands the  Greek  tongue,  can  deny  the  word  to  sig- 
nify TO  WASH,  as  well  as  to  dip."*     In  addition  to 
these  unexceptionable  authorities,  might  be  cited 
many  other  learned  authors,  who  bear  an  unwaver- 
ing testimony  to  this  sense  of  the  word.     The  au- 
thority of  such  writers,  well  skilled  in  that  language 
to  which  the  term  belongs,  is  certainly  decisive:  it 
should  satisfy  the  mind  of  every  unlearned  person, 
that  B««;r7/^<y,  baptize,  does  unquestionably  signify  to 
wash,  as  Avell  as  to  immerse.    The  first  point,  then, 
must  be  given  up  as  wholly  indefensible.     Indeed,  I 
do  not  recollect  that  any  learned  writer,  skilled  in 
the  Greek  language,  has,  in  contending  for  an  ex- 
clusive mode  of  baptism,  ventured  to  restrict  the 
term  to  one  meaning,  and  endeavoured  to  show  that, 
always,  and  in  all  writings,  it  signifies  to  immerse. 
2.  It  cannot  be  proved,  that  /3<«^7/^<w  is  used  by 
the  New  Testament-writers,  in  one  sense  only,  and 
that  this  is  to  immerse. 

*  Owen's  Discourses,  p.  581. 


The  term  baptize  examined.  257 

Were  authorities  demanded  in  settling  the  point, 
the  concurrent  opinion  of  hundreds  of  learned  and 
pious  divines,  who  have  examined  this  word,  might 
be  produced  to  show  that,  in  the  New  Testament, 
it  bears  several  meanings,  and  signifies  to  wash,  to 
pour,  to  spnnklc,  as  well  as  to  immerse.  But  the 
trouble  of  collecting  quotations  from  the  writings  of 
these  great  men,  is  unnecessary;  because  no  one  can 
doubt  this  to  have  been  their  opinion,  when  he  re- 
flects that  they  were  in  the  constant  practice  of  bap- 
tizing, not  by  immersion,  but  by  washing,  effusion, 
or  sprinkling;  which  conscience  would  not  have  al- 
lowed, had  they  been  convinced  that  the  word  never 
signifies,  in  sacred  scripture,  any  thing  but  to  im- 
merse. 

Now,  is  it  to  be  imagined,  that  all  the  learned, 
profound,  and  pious  divines,  who  held  this  opinion, 
and  acted  on  it  in  the  administration  of  a  solemn 
rite,  were  so  grossly  mistaken  with  respect  to  the 
meaning  of  an  important  word,  as  to  have  gone  in 
opposition  to  the  authority  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  lost,  by  their  error,  the  very  ordinance  itself? 
Is  it  to  be  imagined,  that,  after  all  their  frequent 
and  mature  investigations  of  the  meaning  of  this 
word,  and  after  all  their  repeated  and  fervent  sup- 
plications to  the  great  Head  of  the  church  for  the 
teaching  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  they  failed  in  their 
search  for  truth,  and  still  remained  in  this  mourn- 
ful error?  That  God  should  leave  in  error  those  who 
wiil  not  examine  into  the  truth  of  their  opinions,  or 


238  LETTER  XIV. 

those  wlio,  confident  of  being  right,  pray,  not  that 
themselves,  but  that  others  may  be  led  to  know  the 
truth,  is  not  extraordinary.  Nor  is  it  extraordi- 
nary, that  he  should  leave  in  unimportant  errors, 
even  sincere  and  praying  Christians.  But  that  he 
should  suffer  so  many  of  his  people,  after  all  their 
inquiries  about  this  matter,  and  prayers  for  the  il- 
lumination of  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  remain  in  a  very 
important  error;  an  error  in  its  consequences  so 
mischievous,  as  to  deprive  the  larger  part  of  his 
church  of  an  ordinance  designed  for  common  use, 
and  appointed  as  the  mark  of  their  separation  from 
the  world,  is  wholly  incredible.  But,  my  brethren, 
there  is  no  necessity  for  resting  this  matter  on  the 
ground  of  authority.  It  may  be  set  in  such  a  light, 
as  to  let  persons,  unacquainted  with  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, see  for  themselves,  that  the  word  /s^^r?/^*, 
baptize,  signifies  in  the  New  Testament,  to  wash, 
to  pour,  and  to  sprinkle. 

1.  It  signifies  to  xvash.  This  appears  from  a 
passage  in  Luke's  gospel.  At  the  invitation  of  a 
Pharisee  to  dine  with  him,  Jesus  went  in  and  sat 
down  to  meat,  without  previously  washing  himself. 
This,  being  contrary  to  Jewish  custom,  and  a  tradi- 
tion of  the  elders,  excited  great  surprize:  "  And 
when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had 
not  first  washed"  (Greek  baptized)  "  before  din- 
ner."* It  would  be  extravagant  to  contend,  that 
the  word  here  means  immersion  of  the  whole  body, 

•  Luke  xi.  38. 


The  term  baptize  examined.  23d 

and  that  neglect  of  this  act  excited  the  surprise  of 
©ur  Saviour's  host. — Superstitious  as  the  Jews 
•were,  they  did  not  carry  matters  to  such  an  extreme, 
as  to  hohl  it  a  duty  to  phmge  their  entire  bodies 
into  water  before  every  meal.  The  washinj^  deem- 
ed necessary,  referred  to  the  hands,  as  appears  very 
evident  from  Mark  vii.  2 — 5.  **  And  when  they 
saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat  bread  with  defiled 
(that  is  to  say,  Avith  unicashen)  hands,  they  found 
fault;" — and  *<  asked  him.  Why  walk  not  thy  disci- 
ples according  to  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  but  eat 
bread  with  unwashen  lianAsT^ 

In  this  passage,  then,  (Luke  xi.  38.)  the  Greek 
word  ^cc7r'U<^6),  is  correctly  translated  by  the  word 
■wash;  because  the  reason  why  the  Pharisee  marvel- 
led, was,  not  that  our  Saviour  had  not  immersed  his 
hands,  but  that  he  had  not  washed  them.  The 
«ause  of  wonder  was  the  supposed  uncleaiiness  of  the 
thing:  and  it  will  presently  appeat,  that  mere  im- 
mersion of  the  hands  into  water,  was  not  suffi- 
cient to  comply  with  the  Jewish  custom.  The  de- 
filement could  be  removed  only  by  washing.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find  this  very  act,  for  the  omission  of 
which  our  Lord  was  censured,  expressed  in  Mark 
vii.  2,  3.  by  a  different  word,  NittU;  which  signifies  to 
ivashf  and  not  to  immerse:  and,  therefore,  it  is  plain 
that  ^ctTliiv,  haptize^  in  one  place,  and  vi'Trlof,  wash, 
in  the  other,  must  be  equivalent  terms.  And  that 
in  both  is  meant  washing,  and  not  immersion,  is  fur- 
ther evident  from  the  whole  context  of  each  pas- 


24d  LETTER   XIV. 

sage;  for  it  presents  the  idea  of  cleansing  by  wash- 
ing:* **  JDeJiled,  (that  is  to  say,  with  unwashen) 
hands.''  Now,  do  ye  Pharisees  make  clean  the  out- 
side of  the  cup  and  the  platter." 

Hence,  it  appears  that  the  Jewish  custom  re- 
garded, not  the  particular  mode  in  Avhich  water 
was  first  applied  to  the  hands,  but  the  washing  of 
them  so  as  to  make  them  clean.  Had,  therefore, 
our  Lord  and  his  disciples  carefully  washed  their 
hands  before  eating,  they  would  have  complied  with 
the  tradition  of  the  elders;  and  no  surprize  would 
have  been  excited,  nor  reproach  called  forth,  by  the 
particular  mode  of  applying  water,  whether  by  taking 
it  up  in  their  hands  out  of  a  bason,  or  by  having  it 
poured  upon  them.j  This  circumstance  was  a 
matter  of  indifference. 

In  Mark  vii.  3.  we  find  another  convincing  proof, 
that  the  act  prescribed  by  Jewish  custom,  was,  not 
immersion,  but  washing.  "For  the  Pharisees,  and 
all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,'' 
(in  our  translation,  but  literally,  with  the  Jist,^ 
«<  eat  not."  The  word  ^vyi^n  has  occasioned  much 
perplexity  to  commentators:  some  translating  it 
oftf  others,  diligently;  some,  to  the  wrist,  and  others, 
to  the  elbow.  The  literal  translation,  with  the  fist, 
is  preferable  to  any  of  these;  and  no  doubt  suggests 
the  true  meaning.     "Wash   with  the  list!   What  is 

*  Mark  vii.  2,  3,  4.  and  Luke  xi.  38,  39. 

■j-  Pouring  water  on  the  hands  for  the  purpose  of  washing  them* 
■was,  it  seems,  customary  among  the  Jews.  Elisha  is  described  as 
one  who  poured  water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah.  2  Kings  iii.  !1. 


The  term  baptize  examined.  241 

meant?  How  shall  we  understand  the  import  of  this 
phrase?  Reflecting  on  the  difficulty,  it  occurred  that 
our  common  mode  of  washing  removes  it,  and  satis- 
factorily explains  the  phrase.  How  do  we  was.'i 
our  hands?  Uvyf^f^,  with  the  jisU  First,  water  i  s 
poured  upon  the  hands,  or  we  take  it  up  with  them; 
and,  then,  closing  the  one  upon  the  other,  we  rub 
them  against  each  other,  with  the  back  of  one  shut 
against  the  palm  of  the  other.  This,  in  fact,  is 
washing  Trwy/ttJ,  with  thejist.  On  examining  Park- 
hurst's  Lexicon,  I  was  gratified  to  find  that  he  ex- 
plains the  phrase  in  the  same  way.* 

The  kind  of  washing,  then,  which  the  Jews 
held  to  be  a  duty  before  eating,  was  that  particular 
one  which  is  effected  by  Xh^jist,  or  by  rubbing  the 
back  of  one  closed  against  the  palm  of  the  other,  so 
as  to  cleanse  them  thoroughly  from  every  pollution. 
Hence,  it  appears,  that  mere  dipping  them  into  wa- 
ter would  not  have  been  regarded  by  the  Jews,  as  ft 
compliance  with  the  tradition  of  the  elders;  and 
that,  in  Luke  xi.  38.  the  baptizing  which  our  Sa- 
viour omitted  before  dinner,  means,  not  immersion 
of  the  hands,  but  wasliing  them  with  water. 

From  all  that  has  been  said  on  this  passage 
compared  with  a  parallel  one,  it  is  undeniable,  that 

*  "  If  you  shut  your  hand,  the  outside  is  called  Truyfxn.  Hence 
the  dative  7ruyfx}t  being  used,  as  it  were  adverbially,  Trvyfjm 
viTrrta-Bctt  T«t?  X^'S*?»  literally  to  -wash  the  hands  with  the  fist,  i.  c. 
by  rubbing  water  on  the  palm  of  one  hand  with  the  double  fist  of 
the  other.'*  Parkhurst. 

T 


2^2  LETTER  XIV. 

fiofrliia,  laptizCf  in  Luke,  is  equivalent  to  vM^y,  wash, 
in  Mark;  and  signifies  to  ivash,  without  any  regard 
to  immersion. 

We  are  furnished,  in  Mark  vii*  4.  with  another 
proof,  that  this  word  signifies  to  wash:  for  there  a 
substantive  derived  from  it,  is  correctly  translated 
washing.  The  passage  reads  thus:  <*  And  many 
other  things  there  be  which  they  have  received  to 
hold,  as  the  washing*'  (Greek  Bcc^l lo-f^ni,  baptisms) 
"of  cups  and  pots,  of  brazen  vessels,  and  tables,'^ 
The  last  word,  in  the  original,  means  couches,  on 
which  the  ancients  reclined  while  eating.  Some  of 
the  articles  mentioned  might  be  washed  by  dipping 
them  into  water;  but  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that  the 
Jews  washed  their  couches  in  this  way:  these,  it  is 
highly  probable,  were  washed  by  sprinkling  or  pouring 
water  on  them.  Witli  regard  to  one,  at  least,  of  the  ar- 
ticles enumerated,  tlie  word  BccptIit/lco^,  buiitism,  must 
signify,  not  immersion,  but  ivashing.  Besides,  it  is 
to  be  considered  in  reference  to  all,  that  in  whatev- 
er way  water  was  applied,  it  was  done  w  ith  a  view 
to  wash  them.  The  leading  idea  of  the  term,  there- 
fore, is  washing;  and,  whether  water  were,  in  the 
Jirst  act,  applied  by  dipping,  or  by  pouring,  or  by 
sprinkling,  the  cleansing  of  these  articles  was 
BctTrliG-f^oi.  a  baptism,  a  washing. 

2.  The  word  signifies  to  pour,  "I  indeed  baptiae 
you  with  water  unto  repentance:  but  he  that  cometh 
after  me  is  mightier  than  1,  whose  shoes  1  am  not 
wortliy  to  bear;  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 


Thefcerm  baptize  examined,  243 

Ghost,  and  with  fire.  For  John  truly  hajitixed  with 
water;  but  ye  shall  be  hajitized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
not  many  days  hence."*  A  precious  promise!  How 
wasitfulfilled?  Howdid  Jesus  Christ  baptize  his  apos- 
tles with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire?  AVere  they 
immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost?  Were  they  immersed 
in  fire?  How  harshly  this  sounds!  In  Acts  ii.  1 — *, 
16 — 18,  33,  an  account  is  given  of  the  manner  in 
which  this  promise  was  fulfilled.  We  are  informed, 
that  *^  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues, 
like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them;"  that 
<<  they  were  JiUed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began 
to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance;"  that  the  miraculous  infl^uence  of  the  Spi- 
rit was  f'shedforth;^'  and  that  this  was  a  fulfilment 
of  JoePs  prophecy,  in  which  God  had  promised  to 
*'  pour  oiU"  his  "  Spirit  upon  all  flesh." 

Here  is  nothing  like  immersion.  The  apostles 
were  neither  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  nor  im- 
mersed in  fire.  But  the  Holy  Spirit  was  shed  down, 
poured  out  upon  them,  like  rain  from  heaven.  And 
it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that,  although  the  influen- 
ces of  this  blessed  agent,  are  often  in  scripture  com- 
pared to  water,  yet  in  no  place  are  persons  ever  said 
to  be  immersed  in  them.  The  sacred  writers  uni- 
formly represent  these  heavenly  influences  under 
the  idea  of  being  shed  down,  poured  out,  and  sprin- 
kled.  "  I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that  is  tliirsty, 
and  floods  upon  the  dry  ground:  I  will  pour  my  Spi- 

♦  Mat.  iii.  11.  Acts  i.  5. 


24*  tETTBH   XIV. 

Tit  u^on  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine  off- 
spring.'' Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  iipon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean:  from  all  your  filthiness, 
and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you. — And  I 
will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to 
walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judg- 
ments, and  do  them."*" 

It  is  evident,  from  the  address  of  .John,  and  the 
promise  of  our  Saviour  quoted  above,  that  there  is 
a  connexion  between  baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit; 
that  this  rite  is  to  those  who  receive  it  a  sign  of  his 
purifying  influences;  and  that  they  are  bound  by  it 
to  look  and  pray  for  them.  It  appears  too  that 
these  divine  influences  are,  in  various  places,  repre- 
sented as  being  shed  down  or  poured  out,  like  water 
or  rain;  and  the  reception  of  them  is  called  a  being 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence,  it  follows, 
those  who  baptize  by  pouring  water  upon  the  sub- 
ject, use  a  very  apt  emblem  of  the  thing  signified; 
and,  by  the  application  of  the  Greek  term,  baptize, 
in  these  two  passages,  they  are  fully  authorized  to 
use  a  mode  so  very  significant. 

The  attempt  to  derive  an  argument  from  Acts 
ii.  2,  in  favour  of  immersion,  is  futile.  "  It  filled 
all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting:"  thus,  say 
some,  the  apostles  were,  as  it  were,  immersed.  But 
we  ask  them.  What  filled  the  house?  Not  the  Spi- 
rit; not  the  wind;  but  the  sound.  If,  therefore,  the 
apostles  were  immersed,  they  were  immersed  iiei- 

*  Isaiah  xliv.  J.  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  27. 


The  term  baptize  examined,  246 

ther  in  the  Spirit,  nor  in  the  wind,  but  in  the  sound. 
A  noble  argument  indeed!  There  is  nothing,  we  re- 
peat it,  in  (his  narrative  like  immersion.  The  Spi- 
rit is  represented  as  being  poured  out,  and  shed 
down,  like  water.  This  is  baptizing  with  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

3.  The  word  BxTrlt^u,  haptixe^  signifies  to  sprin- 
kle. "  All  our  fathers,"  says  St.  Paul,  "  were  un- 
der the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea;  and 
were  all  baptized  unto  (into)  Moses  in  the  cloud, 
and  in  the  sea."^  What  does  the  apostle  mean  in 
this  passage?  Evidently  this,  that  our  fathers  were 
thus  initiated  into  the  profession  of  the  Mosaic  re- 
ligion, as  Ave  are  initiated  into  the  profession  of 
Christianity  by  baptism.  Baptism  binds  us  to  re- 
ceive the  new  covenant,  and  to  yield  obedience  to 
the  precepts  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  has  made  it 
known,  and  delivered  it  to  us  ratified  by  his  blood: 
so  the  miraculous  passage  of  our  lathers  through 
the  sea,  and  the  suspension  of  the  cloud  over  their 
heads,  bound  them  to  receive  the  old  covenant,  and 
yield  obedience  to  the  laws  of  Moses,  by  whom  it 
was  delivered  to  tj|^em,  ratified  by  typical  <<  blood  of 
calves  and  goatsi^f  Thus,  they  were  baptized  into 
Moses,  as  we  are  <^  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ.":j: 
This  appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  St.  Paul.  He 
alludes,  not  to  the  mode,  but  to  the  obligation  of 
baptism. 

•  1  Cor.x.  1,  2.  t  Heb.  |x.  18— 2S,         t  Rom.  vi.  3. 


246  LETTER  XIV. 

If',  however,  the  mode  in  which  water  was  ap- 
plied to  our  fathers,  when  they  were  haptized,  must 
foe  discovered,  it  is  easy  to  show  that  it  was  not  dip- 
ping. But  some  imagine  they  can  find  proof  of  their 
favourite  mode  even  in  this  historical  fact.  The 
cloud,  say  they,  was  over  their  heads,  and  the  sea 
on  each  side;  and  thus  they  were  immersed.  A  cu- 
rious kind  of  immersion  or  dipping!  Allow  such  an 
extravagant  license  to  fancy,  and  every  person  bap- 
tized in  this  city,  may  be  proved  to  have  been  im- 
mersed: for  clouds  were  suspended  over  his  head, 
and  a  river  flowed  on  each  side.  Away  with  such 
ridiculous  trifling. 

It  is  certain,  that  the  Israelites  were  not  im- 
mersed in  the  sea;  because,  as  Moses  informs  us, 
they  <*  went  into  the  midst  of  the  sea  upon  the  dry 
ground:  and  the  waters  were  a  wall  unto  them  on 
their  right  hand,  and  on  their  left."^  If  water  were 
applied  to  them,  it  could  have  been  in  no  other  way 
than  by  drops  from  the  cloud,  and  by  a  spray  from 
the  sea.  Is  this  immersion?  or  is  it  sprinkling? 
Justly  has  it  been  observed,  in  reply  to  that  licen^ 
tiousness  in  which  some  indulge  ^eir  fancy,  while 
torturing  this  passage  to  make  it%peak  for  them, 
that  the  Israelites  were  sprinkled,  but  the  Egyptians 
immersed:  for,  Moses  says,  *'  The  waters  returned, 
and  covered  the  chariots,  and  the  horsemen,  and  all 
the  host  of  Pharaoh  that  came  into  the  sea  after 
them.*— But  the  children  of  Israel  walked  upon  dry 
land  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,"t 

♦  Eiod.  xiT.  31,  22.  t  Exod.  xiv.  28,  29- 


The  term  baptize  examined,  247 

You  will  find,  ray  brethren,  in  Ileb.  ix.  10,  a 
solid  proof,  that  the  word  under  consideration  sig- 
nifies to  sprinkle.  There  the  apostle  informs  us, 
that  to  the  first  covenant  pertained  divers  wasliings; 
(Greek  BecrliT/^oiq,  haptisms,)  and,  then,  selects,  as 
one  standing  preeminently  among  these  divers  bap- 
tisms, that  ordinance  which  prescribed  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  unclean  with  the  blood  of  bulls,  and  of 
goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer.*  This  instance 
may  be  ranked  under  the  head,  "  carnal  ordinan- 
ces;" a  head  so  general  as  to  comprehend  all  the 
Levitical  ceremonies:  but  let  it  be  observed,  that, 
as  all  those  divers  washings  or  baptisms  to  which 
the  sacred  writer  refers,  were  purifying  rites,  this 
purification  by  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  bulls,  and 
of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer,  has  just  claims 
to  be  considered  as  one  of  those  divers  washings 
or  baptisms,  which  belonged  to  the  first  covenant. 
Purification,  in  whatever  way  effected,  whether  by 
a  total  or  partial  washing,  or  by  sprinkling,  was  a 
baptism,  a  washing:  it  took  away  ceremonial  un- 
cleanness,  as  water,  when  applied  to  our  persons  or 
clothes,  takes  away  from  them  any  natural  unclean* 
ness  which  they  may  have  contracted. 

Sprinklings  then,  is  one  of  the  significations  com- 
prehended under  the  general  term  BxttIi^cj,  baptize. 

Thus,  it  has,  I  think,  been  fairly  proved,  that 
the  Greek  term,  baptize,  is  used,  by  the  writers  of 

*  Heb.  ix.  13.  See  Levit.  xvi.  14,  18,  19.  Numb.  xix.  4,  20,  and 
the  whole  chapter.  Heb.  ix.  18—22. 


2*8  tETTER   Xir. 

the  New  Testament,  in  different  senses,  and  that  it 
inchides  different  modes  of  applying  water;  namely, 
washing,  effusion  or  pouring,  and  sprinkling,  as  »  ell 
as  immersion. 

III.  Nor  can  it  be  shown,  that  divine  authority 
has  determined  this  disputed  word  shall,  in  connex- 
ion with  Chi'istian  l)aptism,  signify  only  to  immerse* 
This  restriction  in  its  meaning,  cannot  be  proved 
from  the  word  itself,  as  used  by  the  sacred  writers; 
because,  as  we  have  just  seen,  they  use  it  in  diffe- 
rent senses:  it  cannot  be  proved  from  the  instances 
of  baptism  on  record;  because  a  fair  and  full  exami- 
nation of  the  circumstances  of  those  narrated  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  makes  it  probable  some  mode 
more  convenient  than  immersion  was  used:  nor  can 
it  be  proved,  from  any  particular  passage  of  scrip- 
ture, that  our  great  Lawgiver  has  determined  this 
word,  although  possessing  different  significations^ 
yet  shall,  in  connexion  with  baptism,  bear  only  one: 
none  will  venture  to  assert  a  thing  so  utterly  desti- 
tute of  proof.  It  is,  then,  impossible  to  bring  any 
satisfactory  evidence  to  show,  that  the  meaning  of 
this  word  should  be  thus  restricted. 


LETTER  XV. 

An  inquiry  answered. — Rom.  \i.  4.  examined. — Be- 
cwpitulation. — Import  of  baptism. — Conclusion 
of  the  discussion. 

Christian  Brethren, 

Recollect  for  a  moment  what  has  been  said 
with  respect  to  the  Greek  term  haptizCf  and  collect 
all  the  evidence  to  one  point.     It  has  been  proved, 

1.  That  this  word  has  more  significations  than 
one; 

2.  That  it  is  used  by  the  sacred  writers,  in  dif- 
ferent ways,  and  signifies,  in  tlie  New  Testament, 
to  washf  to  pour 9  and  to  sprinkle: 

3.  That,  in  connexion  with  baptism,  it  has  not 
been  limited,  by  any  positive  precept  of  our  great 
Lawgiver,  to  one  particular  sense. 

This  we  have  also  proved  to  have  been  the  deli- 
berate opinion  of  many  of  the  greatest,  most  learned, 
and  pious  divines  that  ever  flourished  in  the  Chris- 
tian church:  and  that,  on  this  opinion,  they  acted  in 
the  administration  of  baptism,  which  they  could  not 
have  done  with  a  good  conscience,  had  they  believ- 
ed the  term  to  signify  only  to  immerse. 


250  LETTER   XV, 

On  the  whole,  >ve  conclude  it  to  be  impossible 
to  find,  in  a  word  signifying  to  washf  to  pour, 
to  sprinklCf  as  well  as  to  immerse^  a  precept  pre- 
scribing, in  all  cases,  the  use  of  immersion.  The 
nature  of  this  term  is  such,  that  it  authorizes  the 
administration  of  baptism  in  different  ways,  corres- 
ponding with  its  different  meanings;  by  washing,  by 
effusion,  by  sprinkling,  or  by  immersion. 

Perhaps,  my  brethren,  it  may  occur  to  you  to 
ask,  Why  a  more  definite  word  was  not  selected, 
that  would  have  allowed  of  only  one  mode  of  apply- 
ing water,  and  thus  made  the  practice  of  the  church 
in  administering  baptism  uniform?  Such  a  term 
might  doubtless  have  been  chosen:  and  had  the 
mode  been  a  matter  of  moment,  our  Lord  would 
have  determined  it,  either  by  the  selection  of  such 
an  unequivocal  word,  or  by  some  other  clear  ex- 
pression of  his  will.  He  was  pleased,  however,  to 
do  neither:  and,  from  this  fact,  we  may  safely  in- 
fer the  mode  to  be  unimportant,  and  that,  if  water 
be  applied  in  the  name  of  the  Sacred  Three,  bap- 
tism is  duly  and  lawfully  administered. 

A  writer  of  reputation  in  favour  of  immersion, 
reasons  in  a  manner  very  illogical  and  unjustifiable. 
He  seems,  first,  to  fix  in  his  own  mind  what  our 
Lord  ought  to  have  done;  and,  then,  attempts  to 
prove  that  he  has  done  so.  His  reasoning  goes  on 
the  supposition,  that  the  use  of  a  word  having  more 
meanings  than  one,  in  a  precept  relative  to  baptism* 
ivould  reflect  on  the  wisdom  of  our  great  Lawgiver: 


tin  inquiry  answered*  251 

which  supposition  must  necessarily  imply  ano- 
ther, that  to  allow  more  than  one  mode  in  applying 
baptismal  water,  is  absurd.  Is  this  legitimate  rea- 
soning? Shall  any  man  be  permitted,  first,  to  assume 
his  premises,  and,  then,  to  draw  his  conclusion? 
Grant  this  liberty,  and  what  may  not  be  proved?  In 
all  eases,  this  way  of  reasoning  is  unlawful;  and 
more  especially  so  when  applied  to  the  procedure 
of  our  glorious  Legislator,  in  regard  to  a  positive 
rite,  the  obligation  and  utility  of  which  depend  en- 
tirely on  his  sovereign  will.  Surely  it  behoves  us 
to  inquire,  first,  what  he  has  been  pleased  to  ap- 
point, and,  then,  to  submit  to  it  as  wise  and  good. 
But  by  no  means  does  it  comport  with  the  duty 
which  we  ^we  to  his  infinite  Majesty,  to  imitate 
this  author;  by, first, settling  in  our  own  minds  what 
it  became  onr  Lord  to  appoint,  and,  then,  persuad- 
ing ourselves  that  he  has  made  the  appointment, 
under  the  notion  that  a  different  procedure  would 
reflect  on  his  wisdom.  This^would  be  to  dictate  to 
our  sovereign  Ruler,  instead  of  yielding  implicit 
obedience  to  his  high  appointments.  There  are, 
we  admit,  cases  so  clear,  that,  in  regard  to  them, 
we  may,  with  humble  confidence,  assert  and  contend 
such  a  particular  line  of  procedure  to  be  incompati- 
ble with  the  infinite  perfections  of  God,  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  one  of  the  kind.  It  is  a  case  of  pure  so- 
vereignty. The  institution  of  baptism  resulted 
fi'om  the  good  pleasure  of  Jesus  Christ;  and,  there- 
fore, it  is  our  duty  to  observe  it,  in  every  particular 


252  lETTER  XV. 

in  regard  to  which  he  has  signified  his  will.  But 
wliere  he  has  left  us  at  liberty,  no  mortal  has  a 
right  to  bind  our  conscience.  Has  he  appointed  bap- 
tism? It  is  our  duty  to  submit  to  the  ordinance. 
Has  he  directed  the  use  of  water?  It  is  our  duty  to 
use  this  element.  Has  he  commanded  his  minis- 
ters to  baptize  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost?"  It  is  their  duty 
to  pronounce  this  name  of  God,  this  sacred  *•  form 
of  sound  words."  Has  he  limited  the  application 
of  water  to  one  mode?  No:  we  are  at  liberty,  there- 
fore, to  use  more  than  one;  to  baptize  by  washing, 
by  pouring,  by  sprinkling,  or  by  immersion.  And 
why  should  any  mortal  dare  assume  the  boldness  of 
asserting,  that  to  allow  such  a  liberty  in  regard  to 
the  mode,  and  to  use  a  word,  in  the  precept  enjoin- 
ing this  rite,  which  secures  it,  would  reflect  on  the 
character  of  our  great  Lawgiver;  nay,  that  a  pro- 
cedure like  this  would  disgrace  the  legislative  wis- 
dom of  a  British  parliament?* 

Jesus  Christ  has  not  appointed  the  use  of  one 
mode,  exclusive  of  all  others.  The  different  significa- 
tions of  the  generic  term,  baptize,  and  the  cases  of 
baptism  on  record,  firmly  establish  this  fact. 

And  where  is  the  absurdity,  or  impropriety  of 
allowing  this  liberty  in  the  application  of  watei-?  It 
is  a  matter  of  pure  sovereignty.  Had  it  pleased 
him,  our  LurJ  might  have  substituted  any  other  li- 

*  Booth  on  baptism. 


Bom,  vi.  4.  examined,  253 

quid  in  place  of  water;  or  made  the  whole  ordinance 
very  different  from  what  it  is.  What  he  has  ap- 
pointed is  wise  and  good:  and  unliinited  obedience 
due  to  his  will,  prohibits,  on  the  one  hand,  adding  to, 
and,  on  the  other,  taking  from,  his  ordinance.  The 
use  of  any  other  matter  than  water,  or  of  any  other 
form  of  words  than  that  in  the  precept,  would  be  to 
take  from  the  ordinance;  because  Christ  has  pre- 
scribed both:  but  to  insist  on  immersion  as  the  on- 
ly lawful  mode  of  baptism,  and  to  treat  Christians 
administering  this  rite  in  a  different  way  as  unbap- 
tized,  is  adding  to  it.  Let  us  shun  both  these  ex- 
tremes; because  they  are  alike  contrary  to  the  will 
of  our  sovereign  Lord.  To  this  subject  we  may  ap- 
ply the  apostolic  exhortation:  "  Stand  fast,  there- 
fore, in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us 
free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of 
bondage." 

The  arguments,  founded  on  the  terra  ^eAxli^cj, 
baptise,  and  on  the  cases  of  apostolic  baptism,  in  fa- 
vor of  an  exclusive  mode,  have  now,  I  trust,  been 
fairly  refuted.  These  are  the  principal  which  the 
advocates  of  immersion  plead.  There  is,  however, 
another  of  imagined  importance,  grounded  on  a  sup- 
posed allusion  to  this  mode,  in  Rom.  vi.  4.  which  I 
shall  briefly  consider. 

Admitting,  for  a  moment,  what  is  claimed  by 
our  brethren,  an  allusion  in  this  text  to  immersion, 
to  what  will  the  argument  amount?  Will  it  prove  im- 


HB^  l^ETTER  XV. 

mersioii  to  be  the  only  lawful  mode  of  baptism? 
This  it  ought  to  prove,  or  it  can  be  of  no  service  in 
a  contest,  not  merely  for  the  lawfulness  of  im- 
mersion, but  against  the  lawfulness  of  every  other 
mode  of  baptism.  Does  Paul  deny  the  validity  of 
sprinkling,  washing,  and  pouring?  Does  he  say  the 
church  must  baptize  by  immersion  only?  and  that, 
if  any  presume  to  use  a  different  mode,  they  will  act 
contrary  to  the  authority  of  her  glorious  Head,  and 
deprive  themselves  of  baptism?  Not  a  word,  not  a 
hint  to  this  effect,  can  be  found  in  the  passage.  The 
titmost  to  be  gained  from  it,  is,  that  immersion  was 
sometimes  used  by  the  apostles.  But  how  absurd 
the  attempt,  from  a  bare  allusion  to  a  particular 
mode  of  baptism,  to  prove  all  others  unlawful! 

But  why  should  this  point  be  conceded?  Logical 
reasoners,  using  any  allusion  as  an  argument,  refer 
to  facts  well  known  to  those  to  whom  they  write. 
Before,  therefore,  we  can  be  required  to  grant,  in 
this  argumentative  passage,  an  allusion  to  the  mode 
of  baptizing  by  immersion,  it  ought  first  to  be  pro- 
ved to  us  that  such  a  mode  was  really  used  in  the 
apostolic  church.  But,  so  far  as  I  can  learn  from 
recorded  cases  of  baptism,  it  does  not  appear  the 
apostles  used  immersion.  Yet,  I  have  admitted, 
and  do  admit  this  to  be  a  lawful  mode:  because  wa- 
ter may  be  applied  in  different  ways,  without  affect- 
ing the  validity  of  baptism.  The  mode  is  not  essen- 
tial. Still,  however,  no  positive  proof  can  be  deri- 
ved from  holy  scripture,  to  evince  the  use  of  immer- 


Bom,  vi.  4?.  examined,  2bB 

sion  by  the  apostles.  So  far  as  a  judgment  can  be 
formed,  by  an  impartial  view  of  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  cases  stated  in  sacred  history,  the 
probability  is  that  they  used  a  diiferent  mode.  I 
ask,  then.  Does  candor  require  us  to  admits  in  this 
passage,  an  allusion  to  immersion? 

In  the  next  verse,  the  sacred  writer  says,  **  We 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death.  Is  there  in  the  mode  of  baptism  any  resem- 
blance to  planting?  In  the  sixth  verse,  he  affirms 
that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  Christ.  Is  there 
in  the  mode  of  baptism  any  resemblance  to  crucifix- 
ion? Yet  these  figurative  phrases  are  the  same  in 
meaning  with  that  of  being  '»  buried  with  him  bj 
baptism  into  death." 

The  text  can  be  explained  without  supposing  io 
it  an  allusion  to  any  particular  mode  of  baptism* 
The  apostle's  object,  in  his  whole  argument,  ex- 
pressed in  terms  highly  figurative,  is,  to  prove  that 
Christians  may  not  live  in  sin.  How  does  he  establish 
this  point?  By  pressing  the  obligations  of  baptism. 
What  is  its  general  obligation?  Faith,  obedience, 
and  conformity  to  Christ:  for  we  are  ^<  baptized  in- 
to Christ,"  In  what  respects  must  we  be  conform- 
ed to  him?  In  all  things  in  which  he  is  proposed  as 
our  example.  He  is  our  example,  not  only  in  his 
life,  but  in  his  death,  in  his  burial,  in  his  resurrec- 
tion, and  in  his  ascension:  and,  therefore,  we  are, 
by  baptism,  bound  to  imitate  him  in  these  points  of 
his  history;*  by  dying  to  sin  as  he  died  for  it^  by 


256  LETTER    XV. 

giving  proofs  of  the  mortification  of  sin,  as  he  did 
of  death  by  his  burial;  by  rising  and  walking  in 
newness  of  life,  as  he  rose  from  the  dead  to  die  no 
more;  and  by  setting  our  affections  on  things  above, 
where  Chiist  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God. 

Baptism  is  the  seal  of  our  engagements  to  be 
thus  conformed  to  our  glorious  Head  and  Redeem- 
er. We  are,  therefore,  baptized  into  his  life,  his 
death,  his  burial,  his  resurrection,  and  his  ascen- 
sion into  heaven;  or,  in  other  words,  it  may  be  said 
that,  by  baptism,  we  live  with  him,  we  die  with  him, 
we  are  buried  with  him,  and  so  on. 

It  being  the  apostle's  object  to  show,  that  Chris- 
tians are  bound  by  baptism  to  be  conformed  to 
Christ,  both  in  his  death  and  in  his  resurrection; 
why,  if  he  alluded  to  immersion,  did  he  not  allude 
to  that  part  of  it  which  consists  in  rising  from  under 
w^ter,  as  well  as  to  that  of  being  put  under  it?  Both 
parts  according  to  this  plan  of  interpreting  the  text 
would  have  suited  his  purpose.  This,  however,  is 
not  done.  The  sacred  writer  does  not  say.  We  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  and  raised 
with  him  hy  haptismfrom  the  deadj  but  omitting  the 
latter,  he  uses  only  the  former,  phrase;  which  is  fol- 
lowed by  one  in  which  baptism  is  not  mentioned: 
«  That  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  might"  (not, 
vise  by  baptism,  but)  "  walk  in  newness  of  life.'^ 

The  passage  and  the  context  may  be  paraphras- 
ed thus:  "  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may 


Horn.  vj.  4.  examined,  257 

abound?  God  forbid:''  we  abbor  the  tboiigbt  as  the 
height  of  impiety,  and  indignantly  reject  it,  as  an 
illegitimate  inference  from  the  doctrine  which  we 
have  inculcated.  For  <«  how  shall  we  that  are,"  by 
profession  and  obligation,  "  dead  to  sin,  live  any 
longer  therein?  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ;"  that  is,  dedica- 
ted by  an  appointed  ordinance  to  his  service  and 
glory,  brought  into  communion  with  his  mystical 
body,  the  church,  and,  symbolically,  into  commu- 
nion with  himself;  "  were  bajitized  into  his  death?" 
devoted  to  a  conformity  to  his  death,  and  laid  under 
obligations  to  die  unto  sin,  as  Christ  died  for  it,  and 
derive  influence  from  his  death  for  the  mortifica- 
tion of  every  evil  propensity?  Therefore,  to  pursue 
this  idea,  I  may,  with  propriety,  say,  <*  We  are  bu- 
ried with  him  by  baptism  into  death:"  the  engage- 
ments of  this  holy  ordinance  make  it  our  duty,  not 
only  to  resist  sin,  but  to  prosecute  the  contest  with 
a  full  determination  to  destroy  it;  and  thus  to  give 
proofs  of  its  mortification,  as  Christ  did  of  his  deaths 
by  being  buried.  The  obligations  of  this  Christian 
rite  extend  still  further:  we  must  rise  with  our 
Lord,  «  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead 
by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life." 

On  the  whole,  from  this  passage,  acknowledged 
to  be  difficult  in  its  intrepretation,  no  clear  proof 
can  be  drawn  to  establish  the  use  of  immersion  by 
the  apostle s^  and  certainly  no  evidence  al  all  to 


^BH  LETTER  XV. 

prove  it  to  be  the  only  lawful  mode  of  administei  ing 
Christiau  baptism. 

The  sum  of  what  has  been  said  on  the  mode  of 
baptism,  is  briefly  this: 

1.  The  eonsefjuences  resulting  from  immersion, 
considered  as  exclusive  of  all  other  modes,  are  such 
as  to  constitute  strong  and  decisive  presumptive  evi- 
dence that  this  opinion  cannot  be  founded  in  truth. 

2.  Apostolic  example,  of  which  our  brethren 
boast  as  being  on  their  side,  affords  no  countenance 
to  those  exclusive  claims  to  baptism  which  they 
liave  ventured  to  set  up.  The  circumstances  attend- 
ing the  baptisms,  performed  by  the  founders  of  the 
Christian  church,  and  recorded  by  an  inspired  his- 
torian, so  far  from  proving  the  ordinance  to  have 
been  always  administered  by  immersion,  do  not 
furnish  eve»  prohahle  evidence,  much  less  certain 
proof,  of  their  having  used  this  mode  on  either  ot 
those  occasions.  A  fair  and  impartial  examination 
of  tlicse  cases,  makes  it  probable,  that,  in  every 
instance^  they  baptized  their  candidates  in  a  mod^ 
more  convenient,  and  better  adapted  to  time,  place, 
and  other  circumstances. 

S.  The  term  B^^rV^C'*',  baptize,  which  our  brethren 
imagine  to  contain  a  positive  precept  in  favour  of 
immersion,  is  utterly  unfit  ta  answer  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  pleaded:  because  it  is  certainly  used, 
by  the  i^few  Testament-writers,  in  different  senses; 
and,  tl>ercfore,  as  it  has  not  been  restricted,  in  con- 


Recapitulation,  259 

iiexion  with  baptism,  to  one  meaning,  it  authorizes 
tlie  administration  of  this  rite  in  diftereut  ways,  by 
washing,  effusion,  and  spriulvling,  as  well  as  by  im- 
mersion. 

4.  That  particular  text  (Rom.  vi.  4.)  in  which 
St.  Paul  is  supposed  plainly  to  allude  to  immer- 
sion, furnishes  no  argument  in  favour  of  the  exclu- 
sive claims  of  its  advocates:  for,  in  the  first  place, 
it  can  be  explained,  consistently  witii  the  scope  of 
his  reasoning,  without  admitting  it  to  contain  an  al- 
lusion to  any  particular  mode  of  baptism;  and,  in 
the  second  place,  if  such  an  allusion  were  really 
found  in  the  text,  it  would  only  prove  immersion  to 
have  been  sometimes  used  by  the  apostles,  but  by 
no  means  evince  the  unlawfulness  of  other  modes. 

On  this  review  of  our  arguments,  it  appears,  I 
trust  to  your  satisfaction,  that  the  exclusive  claims 
to  baptism  set  up  by  those  who  practise  immersion, 
can  find  no  support  from  sacred  scripture; — neither 
in  our  Lord's  precept  instituting  the  rite,  nor  in  the 
practice  of  his  apostles,  nor  in  any  particular  pas- 
sage of  holy  writ:  and,  therefore,  that  they  are  to 
be  rejected  as  wholly  unwarrantable.  And  it  also 
appears,  that,  for  the  use  of  the  mode  adopted  by 
our  church,  in  which  water  is  applied  to  the  face 
of  the  person  baptized,  we  find  a  complete  warrant 
in  the  word  of  God;  and,  therefore,  that  we  may 
repel  the  condemnatory  censures  passed  upon  it,  as 
the  fruit  of  error,  and  springing  from  misguided 
zeal. 


260  lETTER   XV. 

Before  I  close  this  discussion  on  the  mode,  per- 
mit me?  my  brethren,  to  direct  your  attention  to  the 
grand  import  of  Christian  baptism.  Its  leading  idea 
is  that  of  purification;  an  idea  conveyed  by  it  in 
whatever  way  administered.  In  support  of  this  po- 
sition, the  following  considerations  are  submitted. 

1.  This  was  the  import  of  those  divers  haptisms 
used  under  the  former  dispensation.  By  whatever 
mode  administered,  they  were  all  appointed  to 
cleanse  from  ceremonial  pollution,  and  thus  to  teach 
the  necessity  of  internal  purification  from  the  de- 
filing nature  of  sin. 

2.  It  is  evident,  from  John  iii.  25,  2(5.  that  puri- 
fication was  the  import  of  John's  baptism:  for  there 
the  terms  purifying  and  haptizeth  are  used  synoni- 
mously.  Both  the  Jews  and  John's  disciples,  it  ap- 
pears, considered  baptism  in  the  same  light  as  a 
purifying  rite.  The  subject  in  dispute  between  them, 
was,  not  the  nature  of  baptism  in  general;  for  in 
this,  as  just  observed,  they  were  agreed:  but  the 
authority  of  John  and  of  our  Lord,  to  adminis- 
ter this  rite,  which  the  Jews  seem  to  have  contested. 
They  contended  for  the  baptisms  or  purifications 
appointed  by  Moses:  and  probably  represented  both 
the  baptism  of  John  and  that  of  Christ,  as  innova- 
tions of  dangerous  tendency,  and  unnecessary,  in- 
asmuch as  various  purifications  had  been  already 
prescribed.  Your  Master  assumes  the  liberty  to 
baptize:  and  lo!  now,  another,  one  lately  baptized 
by  him,  takes  the  same  liberty;  and  multitudes  flock 


Import  of  Baptism.  261 

to  his  baptism.  Where  will  these  innovations  on 
established  order  end?  By  what  authority  does  your 
Master  purify? 

Unable  to  answer  this  rcasonin,^,  and  jealous  for 
the  honour  of  their  Master,  his  disciples  refer  the 
matter  to  him:  <*They  came  unto  John,  and  said 
unto  him,  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jor- 
dan, to  whom  thou  barest  witness,  behold,  the  same 
baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  The  baptist 
replies  to  their  inquiry,  and  removes  their  difficulty, 
by  declaring  the  preeminent  dignity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Thus  he  asserts,  in  the  strongest  manner,  his  au- 
thority to  administer  baptism,  a  purifj  ing  rite;  and 
shows  their  jealousy  for  his  own  reputation  to  be 
highly  improper.*  The  inquiry,  and  the  answer  to 
it,  evince  that  the  dispute  between  John's  disciples 
and  the  Jews,  related  to  the  authority  of  John  and 
of  Christ  to  administer  baptism.  In  the  general  na- 
ture of  it  they  were  agreed:  they  considered  it  as  a 
purification, 

3.  Various  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  sug- 
gest this  as  the  grand  import  of  Christian  baptism: 
<^And  now,  why  tarriest  thou?  arise,  and  be  bap- 
tized, and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord.'^  "Not  by  works  of  righteousness 
which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he 
hath  saved  us,  by  the  ivashing  of  regeneration,  and 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'*  "  That  he  might 
sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water^ 

*  John  iii.  27,  3Q, 


5262  lETTER  XV. 

by  the  word."  "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart, 
in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprin- 
kled from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water."  *<  The  like  figure  whereunto  bap- 
tism doth  now  save  us,  (not  the  putting  away  of  the 
filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God,)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."* 
In  all  these  passages,  baptism  is  alluded  to  as  im- 
porting purification  from  sin. 

4.  Purification  is  the  grand  effect  produced  by 
the  blood,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  The  former, 
being  sprinkled  on  the  conscience,  cleanses  it  from 
guilt;  the  latter,  being  shed  down  upon  the  heart, 
cleanses  it  from  defilements:  and  thus  the  eflicacy 
of  Christ's  blood,  and  the  operations  of  his  Spirit, 
unite  in  producing  one  grand  result,  purification  of 
the  human  soul  from  all  the  stains  and  pollutions  of 
sin.  Now,  baptism,  in  which  water,  that  great  pu- 
rifier of  nature,  is  used,  was  evidently  intended  to 
exhibit  to  us  this  grand  result  of  the  blood  and  Spi- 
rit of  Christ.  No  ordinance  more  emblematical  of 
purification  could  be  devised.  The  sign  represents 
very  clearly  the  thing  signified.  This  apt  corres- 
pondence between  the  two,  decisively  proves  bap- 
tisnl  to  have  been  instituted  to  exhibit  to  us,  in  a 
sensible  and  visible  manner,  that  purification  from 
sin  which  is  effected  by  the  blood  and  Spirit  of 
Christf. 

*  Acts  xxii.  16.  Tit.  iii.  5.  EpheS.  v.  26.  Hcb.  x.  22.  iPet.  iii.21. 
t  Rev.  i.  5.  Acts  ii.  38. 


Import  of  Baptism.  263 

These  considerations  discover  the  grand  import 
of  this  sacred  ordinance.  The  divers  baptisms  in 
use  among  the  Jews,  were  purifications;  John's  bap- 
tism was  a  purification;  various  texts  of  scripture 
exhibit  Christian  baptism  as  a  purification;  and  the 
great  effect  of  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ,  is  pu- 
rification: baptism,  therefore,  must  be  a  purifying 
rite.  Administer  it  as  you  please;  by  immersion,  or 
by  washing,  or  by  pouring,  or  by  sprinkling:  you 
cannot  change  the  import  oi*  that  ordinance  in  which 
water,  the  great  purifying  element  of  nature,  is 
used.  It  remains  still  the  same;  it  is  an  emblematU 
sal  inirijication.  Hence  it  follows,  that  to  contem- 
plate baptism  aright,  we  should  not  confine  our  view 
to  any  particular  mode;  but  consider  it  as  an  ordi- 
nance, in  which,  by  the  application  of  water,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  Lord  our  Redeemer  represents  to  our 
faith,  and  lays  us  under  solemn  obligations  to  seek, 
that  inestimable  blessing, — purification  from  sin  by 
his  blood  and  Spirit. 

Such  being  the  import  of  this  Christian  rite,  the 
quantity  of  water  used  in  its  administration,  is 
wholly  immaterial.  A  small  quantity  will  represent 
the  great  benefit  intended,  as  effectually  as  a  larger. 
Baptism,  be  it  remembered,  is  "not  the  putting 
away  of  thejillli  of  thejlesh:^^  it  is  not  designed  to 
be  a  real  washing,  so  as  to  cleanse  the  body  from 
defilements;!  but  only  a  symbolical  washing,  to  sig- 

*  1  Pet.  Hi.  21. 

■J-  Were  baptism  a  real  washing,  it  is  clear,  neither  of  the  modes 


264*  tETTER  XV» 

nify,  by  the  application  of  water,  an  apt  emblem, 
the  internal  purification  ©f  the  soul.  Such  being; 
the  design  of  this  ordinance,  it  is  manifest,  that  a 
small  quantity  of  the  significant  element  applied  to 
the  face,  will  answer  this  design  as  fully  as  plunging 
the  whole  body  into  a  river:  and  as  the  blood  of  Christ, 
which  eleanseth  us  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  is  repre- 
sented in  holy  scripture  as  being  applied  by  sprink- 
lings and  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Avho 
cleanses  us  from  the  pollution  of  sin,  are  represented 
as  being  poured  out  or  shed  down  upon  us;  it  is  like- 
wise evident,  that  sprinklng  or  pouring  water  on 
the  face,  is  very  emblematical  of  the  thing  signified, 
and  of  the  manner  in  which  our  purification  is  ef- 
fected. The  application  of  water  to  a  principal 
part  of  the  body,  is  a  significant  sign  of  universal 
cleansing.  A  certain  woman,  having  poured  oint- 
ment on  our  Lord's  head,  was  reproved  for  wasting 
a  precious  article.  Jesus  justified  her  conduct,  and 
said,  in  reply  to  the  censures  passed  upon  her,  among 
other  remarks,  "She  is  come  to  anoint  my  body  to 
the  burying."  Mark  xiv.  3 — 9. 

In  a  review  of  what  has  been  said  on  the  mode 
of  baptism,  we  are  authorized  to  deduce  this  as  a 

in  use  would  answer  the  purpose.  Certainly  immersing  a  persoa 
with  all  his  clothes  on,  and  taking  him  immediately  out  of  the  water, 
is  not  sufficient  to  cleanse  him  from  bodily  defilements.  When  we  in- 
tend really  to  wash  ourselves,  we  strip  off  our  garments,  and  bathe 
the  body  by  remaining  in  water,  and  rubbing  it  with  the  water. 


Conclusion^  265 

conclusion  of  the  whole:  That,  although  immersioB 
is  to  he  recognised  as  a  lawful  way  of  administer- 
ing this  holy  rite,  yet  the  application  of  water  to  the 
face  by  washing,  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  is  to  he 
preferred.  This  mode  agrees  best  with  recorded 
cases  of  apostolic  baptism,  is  more  convenient,  and 
may  be  safely  used  to  the  sick  and  dying,  or  the 
tenderest  infants:  it  is  more  congenial  with  the  na- 
ture of  our  climate,  and  the  genius  of  the  present 
dispensation;  and  affords  better  opportunity  fop 
those  devotional  exercises,  which  claim  the  atten- 
tion of  adult  recipients  of  this  rite: — and,  finally,  it 
is  more  emblematical  of  the  manner  in  which  that 
great  benefit,  signified  by  baptism,  purification  by 
the  blood  and  spirit  of  Christ,  is  represented  as  con- 
veyed to  us. 

The  discussion  is  now  finished.  Two  important 
points,  I  have  endeavoured  to  establish;  namely, 
tliat  children  have  a  divine  right  to  baptism,  and 
that  our  mode  of  administering  this  holy  ordinance 
is  both  lawful  and  scriptural.  The  evidence  col- 
lected and  exhibited,  in  support  of  these  interesting 
truths,  is  submitted  to  your  consideration,  in  con- 
fident expectation  of  its  being  sufficient  to  satisfy 
your  minds,  that  the  censures  of  our  brethren  are 
unwarrantable;  and  tl}at  the  word  of  Go*!  affords  a 
complete  justification  of  our  conduct  in  dedicating 
children  to  liie  Lord,  and  in  baptizino^.  not  by  im- 
mersion, but  by  applying  water  to  the  iacc  of  the 
recipient. 


266  LETTER  XTI. 

But,  my  brethren,  I  must  not  close  tliese  letters, 
without  leading  you  to  some  improvement  of  the 
important  truths  >vhich  have  been  illustrated  and 
confirmed.  Every  religious  truth  has  respect  to 
practice;  and,  when  embraced  with  a  true  faith,  will 
have  more  or  less  influence  on  the  temper  and  con- 
duct. It  is  not  sufiicient  to  know  the  truth;  we  must 
reduce  it  to  practice.  In  the  ensuing  letters,  I  pro- 
pose to  make,  both  to  Christian  parents,  and  to  bap- 
tized youth,  such  an  address  as  the  principal  subject 
discussed  requires.  This  address,  by  bringing  into 
riew  the  important  purposes  contemplated  hy  infant 
baptism,  will  serve  to  strengthen  the  evidence  by 
which  the  right  of  children  has  been  supported. 


LETTER  XVI. 

tS.n  Address  to  Parents, 

Christian  Brethren, 

The  letters,  which  you  have  read,  make  it 
evident,  that  the  baptism  of  your  children  is  a  se- 
rious duty;  a  duty  which  you  owe  both  to  them,  and 
to  God. 

Fou  owe  it  to  your  chUdren.  By  birth  they  ob- 
tained an  interest  in  Abraham's  covenant,  and,  con- 
sequently, a  right  to  baptism,  its  appointed  seal. 
You,  therefore,  whom  God  has  made  their  natural 


An  Address  to  Parents.  267 

guardians,  are  bound  to  put  them  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  tliis  covenant-privilege.  Parents  feel  it  as 
an  obligation,  which  it  would  be  criminal  and  unna- 
tural to  disregard,  to  manage  any  estate  belonging 
to  their  children,  until  they  arrive  at  age  and  take 
personal  possession  of  it;  and  to  secure  to  them  any 
tempord  advantage  which  may  be  in  their  power. 
And  should  they  not  feel  it  as  a  most  weighty  obli- 
gation, to  bring  them  in  the  arms  of  faith,  in  order 
to  have  applied  to  them  the  seal  of  a  covenant  con- 
taining most  glorious  promises,  and  blessings  of  in- 
estimable value?  On  you,  parents,  remember,  it  de- 
pends, whether  your  children  shall,  or  shall  not,  en- 
joy their  covenant-right;  whether  they  shall  wear 
the  mark  certifying  the  possessor  to  belong  to  the 
kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  remain  as  unbaptized 
heathens.  How  willingly  soever  the  church  may- 
open  her  bosom  to  receive  them  among  her  acknow- 
ledged children,  and  how  ready  soever  her  minis- 
ters may  be  to  apply  to  them  the  appointed  token  of 
fellowship  in  her  privileges;  yet,  if  you  be  negli- 
gent of  your  duty,  or  unwilling  to  present  them  for 
baptism,  they  must  grow  up  without  this  seal  of 
God's  gracious  covenant,  and  will,  through  your 
fault,  forfeit  their  birthright.  And  can  a  Christian 
parent  be  so  cruel  to  his  children,  so  negligent  of 
their  best  interests,  as  to  bring  upon  them  so  great 
a  forfeiture?  AVliere  then  are  his  bowels  of  love  fop 
his  dependant  offspring?  Will  parents  labour,  night 
and  day,  to  lay  up  for  their  children  an  earthly  trea- 


^8  IiETTER   XVI, 

sure?  and  will  any  refuse  to  do  an  act  so  easy,  si» 
reasonable,  and  so  incumbent,  as  dedicating  them 
to  God  in  baptism,  toward  enriching  them  with  a 
treasure  in  heaven? 

By  what  I  have  just  said  with  respect  to  the  du- 
ty which  a  Christian  parent  owes  to  his  children, 
let  me  not  be  understood  to  mean,  that  a  neglect  of 
this  duty  will  throw  an  insuperable  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  their  salvation.  I  entertain  no  such  idea: 
for,  as  thousands  perish  although  baptized  in  infancy, 
so,  on  the  other  hand,  a  person,  after  having  for- 
feited his  covenant-relation  to  God,  through  his  pa- 
rents' neglect,  may,  by  sovereign  grace,  recover  it, 
and  be  finally  saved  in  consequence  of  his  personal 
repentance  and  faith.  But  it  is  impossible  to  tell  what 
disastrous  effects,  a  righteous  God  may  suffer  to 
spring  from  an  omission  of  this  incumbent  duty. 
The  sins  of  parents,  being  imitated  by  their  children, 
often  become  the  unhappy  and  guilty  cause  of  their 
eternal  ruin:  and,  in  this  way,  a  contempt  or  disre- 
spect of  a  religious  ordinance  by  parents,  may  be 
productive  of  consequences  the  most  pernicious  and 
lasting  to  their  children.  At  any  rate,  neglect  of 
their  baptism  sets  children  free  from  the  restraints, 
arising  from  their  dedication  to  God  in  this 
Christian  rite;  and  free  from  the  authority  and 
discipline  of  the  church,  and  the  influence  of  those 
appropriate  motives  w  hich  it  is  incumbent  on  minis- 
ters to  address  to  baptized  youth,  derived  from  their 
baptism  and  sealed  relation  to  the  church  of  Christ. 


«.1m  Mdress  to  Parents,  269 

It  is  true  tlicy  can  never  be  released  from  the  obli- 
gation* resulting  from  dependanee  on  God,  tlieir 
Creator  and  Governor.  But  this  militates  not  at  all 
against  the  propriety  of  laying  them  under  addi- 
tional obligations;  because,  if  the  former  obliga- 
tions rendered  the  latter  unnecessary,  it  ^vould  prove 
the  baptism  of  adults  an  unnecessary  institution. 
The  fact  is,  the  natural  depravity  of  man  is  such, 
that  he  needs  restraints  multiplied,  his  obligations 
increased,  and  motives  of  every  kind  addressed  to 
his  hopes  and  fears. 

Fou  oxve  the  baptism  of  your  children  as  a  duty 
to  God,  He  has  not,  it  is  true,  said  in  so  many 
words,  Dedicate  your  children  to  me  in  baptism;  but 
he  has  said  what  is  equivalent.  For  he  expressly 
commanded  his  ancient  church  to  circumcise  her 
infant  members:  he  has  plainly  taught  us  that  the 
covenant  containing  this  positive  precept,  is  still  in 
operation;  and  that  children,  under  the  present  dis- 
pensation, retain  their  interest  in  it,  and  member- 
ship in  his  church:  and  he  has  appointed  baptism  as 
the  substitute  of  circumcision,  the  former  token  of 
his  gracious  covenant,  and  sign  of  church-member- 
ship. Thus  has  he  signified  his  will  in  this  matter: 
and  surely  it  carries  with  it  an  authority  little  less 
than  an  express  command. 

No  Christian  parent,  then,  can  neglect  the  bap- 
tism of  his  children,  without  incurring  the  guilt  of 
acting  in  opposition  to  the  divine  will.  Ignorance 
may  lessen  his  guilt;  but  it  cannot  keep  his  con- 

^   A.    .^ 


370  LETTER  XTI. 

science  free  from  its  stains:  and,  therefore,  when- 
ever any  person  heeomes  convinced  of  his  duty,  he 
ought  to  ask  forgiveness  of  this  sin  of  omission,  as 
well  as  of  his  other  offences.  By  neglecting  the 
baptism  of  their  infants,  parents  withhold  from  Je- 
hovah his  own  property:  for  the  children  of  his  co- 
venant-people, he  claims  as  his  children;*  and  he 
commands  their  parents  to  have  them  impressed 
with  the  seal,  by  which  he  designates  his  own  trea- 
sure. You  have  borne  children  unto  God:  and,  sure- 
ly, it  must  be  your  duty  to  acknowledge  them  to  be 
his,  by  presenting  them  to  his  Majesty  in  that  ordi- 
nance which  he  has  appointed  for  this  purpose. 

With  pleasure  and  gratitude,  my  brethren,  should 
you  comply  with  the  divine  will,  in  dedicating  your 
children  to  the  Almighty  in  lioly  baptism.  It  is  a 
privilege  highly  to  be  estimated.  Painful  as  was 
that  rite,  the  Jews  regarded  circumcision  as  an  in- 
valuable favour:  and  justly  too;  for  it  certified  them, 
that  their  children  constituted  a  part  of  God's  pe- 
culiar people,  and  were  interested  in  the  covenant 
made  with  their  illustrious  progenitor.  Baptism 
certifies  Christian  parents  of  the  same  interesting 
truths:  and  the  reception  of  it  for  their  children 
should  be  regarded  as  an  inestimable  privilege;  for 
unquestionably  it  must  be  so,  to  have  our  infants 
enrolled  and  sealed,  with  the  broad  seal  of  heaven, 
as  members  of  that  holy  society  to  which  God  has 
made  the  promises  of  grace  and  salvation;  a  society 
formed  on  earth  as  a  nursery  for  heaven,  from  which 

"*  Ezek.  xvj.  20,  21. 


ein  Mdress  to  "Parents.  271 

trees  of  righteousness  are  transplanted  to  better 
climes,  to  flourish  and  bloom  with  immortal  vigour 
and  beauty.  Baptism  is  a  badge  of  distinction 
more  honourable,  and,  therefore,  more  to  be  desired 
for  our  children,  than  any  that  would  mark  them 
as  members  of  a  human  society,  though  composed 
of  men  the  most  honourable,  and  invested  with  the 
greatest  privileges.  It  distinguishes  them  as  the 
citizens  of  Zion,  as  the  disciples  of  Christ,  as  the 
subjects  of  his  kingdom,  and  as  candidates  for  hea- 
ven: it  places  them  under  the  care,  instruction,  and 
discipline  of  his  church,  and  gives  them  a  peculiar 
claim  to  an  interest  in  her  prayers  and  blessings. 

But,  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  I  inculcate 
as  proper  an  indiscriminate  admission  of  all  chil- 
dren born  of  baptized  parents  to  this  Christian  rite. 
The  covenant-interest,  ratified  by  baptism,  may  be 
forfeited  by  the  misconduct  of  individuals;  and,  con- 
sequently, having  lost  their  own  connexion  with  the 
church,  they  cannot  transmit  to  their  children  any 
right  to  her  initiating  ordinance.  There  are  cer- 
tain qualifications  requisite  in  parents  in  order  to 
entitle  their  infants  to  baptism:  which  not  posses- 
sing, they  have  no  claim  to  this  covenant-seal  for 
them;  and  ministers  are  in  duty  bound  to  refuse  the 
application  of  it,  although  they  should  demand  it  as 
a  right.  But  it  ought  never  to  be  forgotten,  that 
it  is  incumbent  on  all  parents  to  seek  these  qualifi- 
cations, with  a  view  to  secure  to  their  children  the 
§reat  privilege  of  being  received  into  the  church 


272  LETTER  XVI. 

by  baptism.  In  this  particular,  the  matter  stands 
in  reference  to  this  ordinance,  as  it  does  in  regard 
to  the  Lord's  supper.  The  command  to  commemo- 
rate the  death  of  our  Redeemer,  is  binding  on  all 
persons;  yet  many  have  no  right  to  sit  down,  and 
partake  of  his  sacred  feast  appointed  for  that  pur- 
pose; because  they  have  not  the  required  qualifica- 
tions: still,  however,  the  want  of  tliese  qualifications 
does  not  exempt  them  from  the  obligation  imposed 
by  the  Saviour's  dying  injunction;  fortius  injunc- 
tion makes  it  their  immediate  duty,  to  seek  ear- 
nestly that  preparation  which  will  entitle  them  to 
commune  with  his  people  at  the  sacred  table. 

Improper  applications  for  baptism  are  often 
made.  Some  imagine  that,  having  been  baptized  in 
infancy,  they  have  of  course  a  right  to  present  their 
children  for  the  reception  of  this  ordinance,  al- 
though their  conduct  is  so  irregular  and  unchristian, 
as  justly  to  exclude  them  from  the  privilege:  and, 
because  their  application  is  not  complied  with,  they 
think  they  are  deprived  of  a  right,  and  their  chil- 
dren cruelly  treated.  These  are  false  notions,  which 
ought  to  be  corrected.  In  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism, ministers  must  be  governed  by  the  instructions 
of  their  Lord  and  Master,  to  whom  they  are  re- 
sponsible for  their  conduct  in  this  as  well  as  in  every 
other  particular.  Whenever  they  apply  the  cove- 
nant-seal, it  should  be  done,  not  as  a  favour  to  any 
individual,  but  as  a  duty  the  performance  of  which 
he  has  a  right  to  claim.    To  excite  the  displeasure 


•in  Address  to  Parents,  27d 

of  applicants  for  this  ordinance  by  refusing  to  bap- 
tize their  children,  is  indeed  no  grateful  act:  but  it  is 
a  far  less  evil,  than  to  fall  under  the  frowns  of  their 
Supreme  Lord,  by  profaning  his  holy  ordinance  in 
giving  it  an  application  which  he  does  not  authorize. 

Ministers  may  not  administer  baptism  to  those 
children,  whose  parents  have  brought  upon  them  a 
forfeiture  of  this  privilege:  and  such  parents  should 
reflect,  that  the  exclusion  of  their  infant  offspring 
is  occasioned,  not  by  cruelty  in  ministers,  but  by 
their  own  unchristian  behaviour.  Willingly  would 
we  number  these  little  ones  among  the  members  of 
Christ's  church,  had  not  their  parents,  by  theip 
misconduct,  made  it  inconsistent  wi(h  our  duty.  But, 
while  they  persist  in  a  neglect  of  Christian  institu- 
tions and  in  immoral  behaviour,  it  would  ill  become 
our  sacred  and  responsible  office  to  partake  of  theip 
sins,  by  giving  them  the  countenance  which  would 
result,  from  a  profane  application  of  a  holy  ordi- 
nance to  their  infants,  who  have  no  title  to  it. 

**  But  shall  the  innocent  child,"  it  may  be  asked, 
*'  suffer  through  the  fault  of  its  parents?"  I  answer, 
Fes:  such  is  the  will  of  God.  When  Ishmael  was 
shut  out  of  his  father's  covenant,  the  curse  lighted 
on  his  children  in  their  successive  generations.  The 
Jews  have  been  excommunicated  from  the  church, 
and  their  eliildren  with  them.  The  same  law  still 
governs.  Whenever  parents  incur  a  forfeiture  of 
their  covenant-relation  to  the  Most  High,  the  loss 
terminates  not  in  themselves,  but  extends  to  their 
infants. 


274  BETTER  XVI, 

In  this  particular,  the  government  of  God  over 
his  church,  harmonizes  with  his  government  over 
the  world.  Under  both,  the  interest  of  parents  and 
the  interest  of  their  children,  are  most  closely  uni- 
ted. If  a  parent  squander  away  his  property,  his 
innocent  children  become  impoverished:  or  if  a  pa- 
rent lead  an  ungodly  and  impious  life,  his  children 
will  be  exposed  to  the  danger  of  imitating  his  wick- 
ed example,  and  may,  consequently,  lose  their  souls. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  a  parent,  by  industrious  apc 
plication  to  business,  acquire  a  fortune,  his  children 
will  reap  the  benefit  of  his  labour:  or  if  a  parent 
lead  a  virtuous  and  pious  life,  his  children  will  en- 
joy the  signal  advantage  of  religious  instructions 
enforced  by  a  good  example,  and  be  thus  placed  in 
circumstances  the  most  propitious  to  their  eternal 
salvation.  Such  is  the  state  of  things,  under  God's 
general  government  over  mankind;  and  the  state  of 
things,  established  by  his  government  over  the 
church,  is  similar.  The  right  of  children  to  bap- 
tism stands  or  falls  with  the  covenant-interest  of 
their  parents. 

This  being  the  order  which  God  has  been  pleased 
to  establish  in  his  own  house,  it  were  presumptuous 
in  his  ministering  servants  to  violate  it,  by  giving 
the  covenant-seal  to  infants  not  entitled  to  it.  The 
order  is  wise  and  good.  A  conscientious  regard  to 
it  will  maintain  such  a  salutary  discipline  in  the 
church,  as  w  ill  enlist  the  natural  affection  of  parents 
on  the  side  of  duty;  and  tend  to  impress  delinquents 


e3n  Address  to  Tarents,  275 

with  a  conviction,  that  the  interest  of  their  infant 
offspring  concurs  with  Iheirown  welfare,  in  demand- 
ing from  them  a  return  to  the  path  of  duty.  And 
it  ought  to  he  recollected,  that  administering  bap- 
tism, through  mistaken  compassion,  to  infants  not 
having  just  claims  to  it,  is  not  only  contrary  to  the 
divine  will,  hut  real  cruelty  to  others;  because  it 
lays  aside  that  discipline  which  God  has  appointed 
for  the  benefit  of  his  church,  and  is  calculated  to 
weaken  the  obligations  which  this  ordinance  imposes 
on  parents  to  instruct  their  children,  and  set  before 
them  a  Christian  example. 

The  views  and  motives  of  parents  in  presenting 
their  children  for  baptism,  should  correspond  with 
the  nature  and  design  of  this  ordinance.  Many,  it 
is  to  be  feared,  have  no  correct  views  of  their  duty, 
and  are  influenced  by  very  improper  motives:  some 
designing  only  to  comply  Avith  the  custom  prevail- 
ing in  the  country  or  place  in  which  they  live;  others 
being  actuated  by  a  superstitious  dread,  that,  if 
their  children  were  to  die  without  baptism,  they 
would  be  lost;  and  others  imagining  the  grace  of 
regeneration  conveyed  by  this  ordinance  to  its  reci- 
pients, and  of  course  their  children  made  by  it  re- 
newed Christians.  These  motives,  founded  in  error 
and  in  ignorance,  should  have  no  influence.  The 
first  overlooks  the  authority  of  Jehovah,  while  it 
offers  homage  to  the  opinions  and  practices  of  men. 
The  second  lays  undue  stress  on  this  rite:  for,  al- 


276  BETTER  XVI, 

though  parents  should  endeavour  to  present  their 
children  for  baptism  at  an  early  day,  yet  the  idea 
of  a  child's  salvation  depending  on  the  application 
of  water  to  it,  should  be  entertained  by  none:  "  Bap- 
tism doth  save  us  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth 
of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
towards  God^)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ." 
The  last  supposes,  between  the  ordinance  and  the 
thing  signified  by  it,  a  connex'o?i  which  God  has  not 
established.  The  former  may  be,  and  often  is,  used 
as  a  channel  for  conveying  the  latter:  but  still  there 
is  no  certain  connexion  between  the  reception  of 
baptism  and  the  bestowment  of  grace.  S  mon  Ma- 
gus, shortly  after  having  been  baptized  l^y  Philip 
the  evangelist,  was  thus  addressed  by  the  apostle 
Peter:  **  I  perceive  that  thou  art  in  the  gall  of  bitter- 
ness,  and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity.  Acts  viii.  23. 

The  true  and  proper  motive  that  should  induce 
you,  my  brethren,  to  apply  for  the  baptism  of  your 
children,  is  obedience  to  the  divine  will.  Jehovah 
demands  from  you  the  dedication  of  those  little  ones 
which  he  hath  given,  to  himself  in  this  holy  ordi- 
nance. He  instituted  baptism  as  a  part  of  his  wor- 
ship; that,  by  performing  it,  we  might  acknowledge 
him,  as  Head  of  the  church,  to  have  a  sovereign 
right  to  prescribe  the  forms  of  his  own  worship. 
Your  motive,  then,  in  complying  with  this  rite, 
should  correspond  with  its  nature  and  design:  yoa 
should  approui'h  it,  under  a  deep  sense  of  the  Irgh 
authority  by  which  it  was  instituted.     A  regaiu  to 


Jin  Address  to  Parents.  277 

the  authority  of  its  institutor,  exalts  the  baptism  of 
your  children  into  an  act  of  acceptable  worship: 
but  the  same  act,  performed  with  a  different  mo- 
tive, sinks  into  mere  will-worship. 

The  reception  of  this  ordinance  should  be  ac- 
companied with  an  unfeigned  dedication  of  your 
children  to  God.  To  afford  you  an  opportunity  of 
doing  this  reasonable  act,  in  a  manner  interesting, 
solemn,  and  impressive,  baptism  was  instituted. 
The  language,  therefore,  of  your  heart  in  drawing 
nigh  to  Jehovah  in  his  holy  ordinance,  should  be  as 
follows:  Creator,  God  of  my  life  and  the  life  of  my 
child,  thou  God  of  mercy  in  Christ,  our  Redeemer, 
in  obedience  to  tliy  sovereign  will,  I  come  to  make 
a  solemn  surrender  of  my  child  to  thee^  from  whom 
I  have  received  him.  Influenced  by  thy  grace,  I 
cheerfully  and  joyfully  dedicate  him  to  thy  service 
and  glory,  in  this  holy  ordinance  appointed  for  the 
purpose:  and  henceforth  I  would  look  upon  him  as 
thy  property,  and  feel  myself  under  renewed  and 
augmented  obligations  to  train  him  up  in  thy  nur- 
ture and  admonition,  that  he  may  consider  himself 
as  thy  devoted  servant,  and  act  worthy  of  that  ho- 
nourable relation  which  he  sustains  to  thee  and  to 
thy  church.  This  sacred  rite,  I  receive  as  a  token 
of  his  dedication,  and  of  my  engagements  to  edu- 
cate him  according  to  the  true  import  of  the  solemn 
transaction. 

Moreover:    In   receiving  this   ordinance,    you. 

should  endeavour  to  exercise  faith  iu  that  great  pro- 

2b 


278  LETTER   XVI. 

mise  which  it  seals.  The  original  promise  made  to 
Abraham  and  to  his  seed,  is  directed  to  Christian 
parents;  and  baptism  is  the  new  instituted  token  of 
it.  It  must,  therefore,  be  the  duty  of  parents  to 
give  honour  to  God's  faithfulness,  by  believing  this 
gracious  promise  when  they  receive  its  confirming 
sign. 

You  are  not  required  to  believe,  that  your  chil- 
dren will  certainly  become  partakers  of  the  saving 
blessings  of  the  covenant;  for  the  promise  does  not 
insure  the  salvation  of  all  the  seed  to  >Ahich  it  is 
exhibited.  But  it  is  your  duty  to  believe,  that  the 
blessings  of  life  and  salvation  will  certainly  descend, 
from  one  generation  to  another,  in, that  visible  so- 
ciety, the  church,  to  which  all  baptized  persons  be- 
long; and,  therefore,  inasmuch  as  your  children  are 
members  of  this  society,  you  should  cherish  a  hope 
of  their  becoming  sharers  in  these  saving  blessings, 
and  being  selected,  by  its  Sovereign  Head,  as  heirs 
of  heavenly  glory. 

In  language  like  the  following,  should  you  breathe 
out  the  desires  of  your  hearts:  I  bless  thee,  0  hea- 
venly Father,  and  God  of  all  grace,  for  thy  merci- 
ful promise  to  be  my  God,  and  the  God  of  my  seed: 
and  now,  believing  this  glorious  promise,  I  receive 
for  my  child  that  sacred  rite  which  is  intended  to 
certify  his  covenant-relation  to  thy  Supreme  Ma- 
jesty. How  great  an  honour  for  him  to  be  called 
thine,  though  by  an  external  relation!  How  great 
his  privilege,  in  having  it  certified  to  him  by  bap- 


Jin  J.ddress  to  Parents.  279 

tism,  that  thou  art  ready,  in  the  appointed  and  re- 
vealed way,  through  faith  in  thy  Son,  our  Redeemer, 
to  admit  him  to  a  spiritual  and  invisihle  relation  to 
thyself,  and  to  become  his  God  in  the  fullest  and  no- 
blest senseof  thy  promise!  Hence,  I  would  draw  en- 
couragement to  hope,  that  my  child  will  by  grace 
be  advanced  to  this  intimate  union  with  his  God; 
and  that  membership  in  thy  visible  church,  will 
prove  the  happy  means  of  introducing  him  into  that 
invisible  and  holy  society,  the  members  of  which 
share  in  all  the  saving  blessings  of  thy  grace.  As 
thou,  O  most  merciful  God,  hast  been  pleased  to 
make  him  thine  in  covenant:  so  be  pleased  to  make 
him  thine,  by  imparting  to  him  its  grace,  life,  and 
salvation.  Lethimbe  ofthat  happy  number,  who  imi- 
tate the  faith  of  Abraham,  thy  friend,  and  rejoice 
with  them  in  being  made  partakers  of  the  promise 
in  its  most  glorious  extent.  Believing  thy  promise,  I 
look  upon  my  child  as  a  sealed  candidate  for  heaven- 
ly glory:  and  most  fervently  do  I  beseech  thee  not 
to  suffer  him  to  fail  of  receiving  grace,  nor  to  lose, 
by  unbelief,  the  inestimable  prize  set  before  him. 

Never  should  you  forget.  Christian  parents,  that 
the  baptism  of  your  children  lays  you  under  solemn 
obligations  to  train  them  up  in  such  a  religious  man- 
ner, as  may,  by  God^s  blessing,  bring  them  to  the 
enjoyment  of  the  saving  benefits  of  the  covenant. 
The  language  of  Jehovah  in  the  ordinance,  is.  This 
is  my  child;  take  him  and  educate  him  for  me,  that, 
when  grown  up,  he  may  love  and  delight  in  my  ser- 


28a  LETTER   XVI. 

\'ice.  Your  first  care,  then,  should  be  to  histruct 
your  children  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  to  bring 
them  to  an  acquaintance  with  the  doctrines,  pre- 
cepts, and  promises  of  our  holy  religion.  This  im- 
portant business  of  instruction,  should  be  begun 
very  early,  and  continued  as  long  as  your  children 
vemain  under  your  government:  and  that  it  may  be 
done  effectually,  you  should  teach  them  personally, 
as  well  as  employ  the  assistance  of  others.  Put  the 
bible  and  other  religious  books  into  their  hands^ 
and  lead  them  to  the  house  of  God,  that  they  may 
hear  his  holy  word  expounded  and  enforced.  Teach 
them  early  their  native  depravity,  and  their  abso- 
lute need  of  a  Saviour.  Talk  to  them  about  the  di- 
vine person  and  mediatorial  character,  the  wonder- 
ful work  and  gracious  offices  of  Jesus  Christ.  Ex- 
plain to  them  the  nature  of  repentance,  faith,  and 
regeneration^  and,  while  you  press  on  them  the  ne- 
cessity of  these  graces,  fail  not  to  inform  them,  that 
they  must  look  to  the  Holy  Spirit  for  them,  who 
alone  can  work  them  in  the  human  heart.  Disco- 
ver to  them  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ments, the  happiness  of  the  righteous,  and  the  mi- 
sery of  the  wicked.  Urge  them,  by  motives  addres- 
sed both  to  their  hopes  and  to  their  fears,  to  pre- 
pare for  death  and  eternity:  and  to  give  weight  to 
these  motives,  labour  to  impress  their  minds  with  a 
sense  of  the  shortness  and  uncertainty  of  life. 
Teach  them  their  duties,  and  guard  them  against 
temptations  and  dangers.    Let  all  your  instructions 


An  Mdrcss  to  Parents.  281 

be  enforced,  by  admonisbing  your  cbildren  tbat, 
being  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism,  tbey  are  not 
tbeir  own,  but  are  bound,  by  covenant-engage- 
ments sealed  in  that  ordinance,  to  live  for  God. 
Let  them  be  encouraged  to  seek  divine  grace,  by 
explaining  to  them  the  nature  of  Jehovah's  gracious 
covenant,  and  informing  them  that  baptism  certifies 
his  willingness  to  become  their  reconciled  God,  and 
portion  in  Christ  Jesus.  Communicate  to  them  the 
precious  truth,  that,  while  all  who  hear  the  gospel 
have  encouragement  afforded  to  hope  for  success  in 
the  diligent  use  of  means  appointed  for  obtaining 
divine  grace,  they  have  more  than  others;  because 
they  are  members  of  the  church — of  that  holy  socie- 
ty to  which  all  the  promises  belong  by  covenant- 
grant,  confirmed  by  a  visible  sign. 

Remember,  too,  parents,  that  the  exercise  of  a 
prudent  and  salutary  discipline  over  your  children, 
is  an  incumbent  duty.  SuflScient  authority  is  given 
to  you  for  this  purpose.  Be  careful,  therefore,  to 
admonish,  to  reprove,  to  rebuke,  and,  when  necessa- 
ry, to  correct  them.  To  the  duty  last  mentioned, 
some  parents  have  strong  objections:  but  they  ought 
to  recollect  that,  if  through  excessive  indulgence, 
or  careless  indifference,  they  do  not  correct  their 
children  for  misconduct  calling  for  chastisement, 
they  fail  in  kindness  to  them,  as  well  as  in  duty  to 
God.  To  imagine  children  can,  before  they  obtain 
the  exercise  of  reason,  be  governed  without  correc- 
tion, is  to  entertain  a  notion  false  in  itself,  and  re- 
^  B  ^ 


382  LETTER  XVI. 

pugnant  to  inspired  truth.  <«  Foolishness,"  says  the 
wise  man,  «  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  child;  but  the 
rod  of  correction  shall  drive  it  far  from  him.  He 
that  spareth  his  rod  hateth  his  son:  but  he  that 
loveth  him  chasteneth  him  betimes.''*  The  severe 
calamities  brought  on  Eli's  family,  for  his  not  re- 
straining the  licentious  conduct  of  his  sons,  by  the 
exercise  of  that  authority  with  which  he,  as  a  magis- 
trate, was  clothed;  should  excite  in  parents  a  sa- 
lutary fear,  lest,  by  a  criminal  indulgence  of  their 
children,  and  a  mistaken  tenderness  in  withholding 
correction,  they  should  expose  both  themselves  and 
their  children  to  the  mournful  consequences  of  neg- 
lected duty.f 

Once  more:  Prayer  must  accompany  all  your 
endeavours  to  educate  your  children  in  religious 
truth  and  practice.  Depraved  in  heart  and  natu- 
rally prone  to  evil,  their  corrupt  propensities,  un- 
less subdued  by  divine  grace,  will  render  ineffectual 
your  instruction,  discipline  and  influence:  and,  there- 
fore, for  this  grace  you  ought,  fervently  and  perse- 
veringly,  to  pray,  both  in  private  and  with  your 
children. 

From  the  covenant-promise,  be  it  remembered. 
Christian  parents,  you  may,  and  should,  derive  at 
once  a  precious  encouragement  to  pray  for  your 
children,  and  a  powerful  argument  to  enforce  your 
prayers:  an  encouragement,  because  they  may  be 
of  that  happy  number  to  whom  God  intends  to  com- 

*  Prov.  xxii.  15.  and  xiii.  24.  t  ^  Sam.  Hi.  11—14, 


ein  Mdress  to  Parents.  283 

manicate,  saving  blessings;  and  an  argument,  be- 
cause he  directs  you  to  plead  it,  and  put  him  in 
remembrance  of  his  engagements.  Arguments 
drawn  from  God's  o>vn  promises,  are  the  strongest 
and  the  most  effectual  that  can  be  urged  in  prayer. 
With  this  truth  Moses  was  well  acquainted; 
and,  with  holy  skill,  he  pleaded,  on  sundry  occa- 
sions, Jehovah's  promise,  covenant,  and  oath.* 
Hence,  the  great  success  which  attended  the  prayers 
of  this  illustrious  saint. 

Carry,  then,  my  brethren,  your  dear  offspring 
in  the  arms  erf  faith,  to  a  throne  of  grace,  and  be- 
seech the  Lord  your  God  to  remember  his  covenant, 
and  graciously  fulfil  to  them  his  great  promise,  by 
imparting  to  them  saving  benefits.  Beseech  him, 
by  his  covenant-engagements  with  the  church,  to 
admit  them  to  an  intimate  and  spiritual  union  with 
his  divine  Majesty;  that,  in  the  highest  sense  of  the 
relation,  he  may  be  their  God,  and  they,  his  sons 
and  daughters. 

Finally:  It  is  an  incumbent  duty  to  set  before 
your  children  a  pious  example.  Mere  instruction 
is  not  sufficient.  To  render  it  effectual  and  truly 
profitable,  it  must  be  enforced  by  consistent  per- 
sonal practice.  You  must  live  religion  before 
your  children,  as  well  as  teach  it;  and  thus  convince 
them  you  really  believe  the  doctrines,  and  feel  bound 
to  observe  the  precepts,  which  you  inculcate.     A 

*    Exod.  xxxii.  11—14,  and  xxxiii.  12 — 17. 


284  LETTER   XVI. 

pious  example  will  give  authority  to  your  in- 
structions. Jt  will  impress  the  truth  on  your  chil- 
dren's minds,  powerfully,  though  imperceptibly.  It 
will  soften  hearts,  which  instruction  cannot  pene- 
trate. It  will  also  explain  the  truth,  and  make  it 
intelligible  to  the  dullest  comprehension.  Let  your 
children  see  religion  living  and  reigning  in  your 
temper  and  conduct,  and  they  will  gain  such  a  view 
of  its  nature  and  tendency  as  words  can  never  im- 
part. 

These,  Christian  parents,  are  the  duties  which 
the  baptism  of  your  children  imposes.  Perform 
them  with  fidelity,  diligence,  and  perseverance;  and 
then  you  may  look  forward  with  encouraging  hopes 
to  the  future  conversion  and  salvation  of  your  dear 
offspring.  It  is  a  maxim,  written  with  the  pen  of 
inspiration:  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should 
go;  and  when  he  is  old  he  will  not  depart  from  it."* 
The  great  design  of  Jehovah's  covenant  is  ex- 
pressed in  these  cheering  words:  **  I  will  establish 
my  covenant  between  me  and  thee — to  he  a  God  unto 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.\  These  truths, 
smiling  benignantly  on  children,  should  give  life  to 
parental  faithfulness,  and  inspire  with  hope,  when 
want  of  success  would  lead  to  despondency.  For  a 
long  time,  your  efforts  for  the  conversion  of  your 
children  may  seem  fruitless.  The  charms  of  this 
vain,  fascinating  world,  may  lead  them  astray  from 
duty;  and,  impelled  by  youthful  and  intemperate  pas^ 

*  ProT.  xxii.  6.  f  Gen.  xvii.  7. 


An  Mdress  to  Parents.  285 

aions,  they  may  run  into  great  excesses  of  vice:  but 
still  you  should  not  despair  of  their  salvation;  they 
may  yet  be  reclaimed,  and  you  enjoy  the  happiness 
of  hailing  them  as  new-born  heirs  of  eternal  glory. 
Or  should  their  profligacy  bring  your  gray  hairs 
with  sorrow  to  the  grave,  yet  your  instructions,  for  a 
w  hile  apparently  lost,  may  hereafter  operate  on  their 
hearts,  and  lead  them  to  repentance  and  faith,  when 
the  lips  which  now  impart  them  shall  have  ceased  to 
admonish  and  entreat.  How  many  pious  parents 
have  had  the  felicity  of  welcoming  to  the  mansions 
of  eternal  blessedness,  children  of  whose  salvati(m 
they,  while  on  earth,  almost  despaired!  This  may 
be  your  felicity.  Seed  sown  by  the  hand  of  dili- 
gence, watered  by  tears  of  parental  affection,  and 
cherished  by  the  prayers  of  faiths  is  not  likely  to  be 
lost.  For  a  time  it  may  lie  buried  in  dust;  but  at 
length  it  may  vegetate  and  bring  forth  abundant 
fruit. 


LETTER  XVIL 

An  Mdress  to  Baptised  Foutlu 

My  young  friends. 

Permit  me  aftectionately  to  direct  your  atten- 
tion to  those  important  duties,  resulting  from  your 
baptism  in  infancy,  the  fulfilment  of  which  should 
now  engage  your  most  diligent  endeavours.  When 
your  parents  presented  you  in  this  ordinance,  you 
were,  it  is  true,  entirely  passive  in  the  transaction, 
and  unconscious  of  the  meaning  of  it.  But  do  not, 
on  this  account,  imagine  the  act  of  dedication  to  be 
a  nullity.  No:  it  is  binding;  it  is  recorded  in  hea- 
ven: and  all  the  reluctance  of  a  rebellious  spirit  can- 
not annul  the  obligation;  nor  can  the  sophistry  of 
error  prove  it  to  be  of  no  force.  You  were,  be  it 
remembered,  the  property  of  Jehovah  antecedently 
to  the  surrender  which  your  parents  made;  because 
from  him  you  had  received  your  being,  and  all  its 
endowments.  Being  his  property  by  right  of  crea- 
tion, it  was  perfectly  just  in  him  to  require  your 
parents  to  acknowledge  this  fact  by  a  significant  ce- 
remony: and  the  recognition  of  it  in  baptism  was  a 
reasonable  service,  which  they  could  not  refuse 
without  rebellious  ingratitude.  To  dedicate  you  to 
God,  they  were  in  duty  bound:  and,  had  they  not 


An  Address  to  Fonth,  2S7 

done  it.  you  deceive  yourselves,  if  you  ima|^inc  you 
would  have  been  leff  at  liheHy  to  act  as  you  please. 
Far  from  it:  every  huriiiin  being,  baptized  or  not,  is 
subject  to  that  holy  law  which  demands  perfect  and 
unsinning  obedience,  under  penally  of  eternal  death. 
You  have,  then,  no  j^round  to  complain  of  the  con- 
duct of  your  parents  in  this  act;  and  we  hope  you 
will  never  allow  such  a  thought  to  enter  your  minds: 
for  they  have  done  you   no  iiyury  in  giving  you  up 
to  your  rightful  Lord  and  IMaster,  whose  unlimited 
propriety  in  you  can  never  be  impaired.     The  mo- 
ment you  received  existence,  you  were  his;  and  as 
long  as  you  shall  retain  your  being,  you  will  be  his. 
Complain  of  being  baptized!    of  an   invaluable 
privilege!  Complain  of  being  planted  in  the  nursery 
of  heaven!    of  being   entered  into   that    school   of 
Christ,  in  which  the  pupils  are  trained  up  for  the 
employments  and  pleasures  of  the  heavenly  state; 
where  they  are  taught  a  divine  philosophy,  consist- 
ing in  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  of  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ;  the  mystery  of  redemption,  and  the  way  to 
glory;  the  science  that  makes  man  wise  unto  salva- 
tion! Complain  of  being  united  to  that  visible  soci- 
ety, separated  from  the  world,  by  Jehovah's  cove- 
nant; a  society  which  he  has  enriched  by  iaestinja- 
ble  promises,  and  visits  with  his  saving  grace;  and 
in  which  he  seeks  and  finds  the  heirs  of  his  heavenly 
kingdom!  Complain!    Your  hearts  should  overflow 
with  gratitude  to  God   for  granting  you  the  great 
privilege  of  infant  baptism.   Thankful  you  certainly 


S88  LETTER  XVII. 

will  be,  if  ever  you  receive  his  converting  grace. 
You  will  bless  his  holy  name,  for  requiring  your  pa- 
rents to  dedicate  you  to  his  service.  You  will  look 
back  with  pleasure  to  that  hour,  when,  by  the  wash- 
ing of  water,  you  were  sealed  as  Jehovah's  pix)- 
perty:  and  you  will  regret  that  any  time  since  has 
been  spent,  in  a  way  inconsistent  with  the  import 
and  obligation  of  your  baptismal  dedication  to  Al- 
mighty God. 

The  duties,  my  young  friends,  imposed  on  you 
by  baptism,  are  threefold:  they  relate  to  your  pa- 
rents, to  the  church,  and  to  God. 

1.  Baptism  imposes  on  you  duties  with  respect 
to  your  parents.  These  duties  correspond  with  those 
which  your  parents  owe  to  you.  Are  they  bound, 
by  baptismal  engagements,  to  instruct  you  in  reli- 
gion? Then  you  must  be  bound  to  receive  their  in- 
structions, with  a  teachable  disposition.  Never  turn 
away  your  ears  from  them;  but,  at  all  times,  listen 
attentively  to  their  words.  Study  those  excellent 
summaries  of  divine  truth,  our  shorter  and  longer 
catechisms.  Read  the  holy  scriptures  daily.  You 
are  pupils  in  the  school  of  Christ:  and,  being  fa- 
voured with  so  divine  a  teacher,  it  is  surely  incum- 
bent on  you  to  receive  that  heavenly  knowledge 
which  he  imparts.  The  acquisition  of  this  know- 
ledge is,  not  only  highly  important,  but  absolutely 
necessary  to  your  salvation.  You  should,  therefore, 
be  anxious  to  obtain  it,  and  carefully  improve,  for 


till  Mdress  to  routh,  289 

the  purpose,  all  the  means  with  which  you  are  fa- 
voured. "  This  is  life  eternal,"  said  our  Redeemer, 
<«  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent/'  Sucli  being 
the  inestimable  value  of  the  prize  set  before  you, 
how  vigorous  should  be  your  endeavours  to  secure 
it!  How  diligently  should  you  learn  tlie  doctrines 
and  precepts  of  our  divine  religion,  that  you  may 
know  how  to  live  for  God,  and  find  the  way  to  his 
heavenly  kingdom!  Here  let  me  remind  you  of  a 
truth  which  ought  never  to  be  forgotten,  that  with- 
out the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  you  cannot  gain 
a  spiritual,  experimental,  and  saving  acquaintance 
with  the  sacred  scriptures.  Most  earnestly,  there- 
fore, implore  his  gracious  aid  and  divine  illumina- 
tion; and,  whenever  you  open  your  bible,  or  other 
religious  book,  offer  up  David's  devout  ejaculation: 
<^  Open  thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous 
things  out  of  thy  law." 

Is  it  the  duty  of  your  parents  to  maintain  order 
and  exercise  discipline  in  their  families?  Then  it 
must  be  your  duty  to  conform  to  their  established 
rules,  to  submit  to  their  restraints,  and  to  profit  by 
their  reproofs. 

Are  your  parents  bound  to  set  before  you  a  pious 
example?  Then  you  must  be  bound  to  copy  afier 
their  piety.  Do  they  fulfil  this  part  of  their  bap- 
tismal engagements?  Bless  God  for  giving  you  such 
valuable  parents;  and  let  it  be  your  prayer  to  be 
enabled  to  profit  by  this  signal  advantage,  and  to 


390  XETTER   XVII. 

imitate  their  Christian  deportment.  But  if  they 
prove  delinquent,  and  set  you  a  had,  instead  of  a 
good,  example,  you  may  not  imitate  their  wicked- 
ness. You  are  to  follow  them,  only  when,  and  as 
far  as,  they  follow  your  heavenly  P^'ather.  In  cir- 
cumstances so  unfavourable,  you  should  cry  the 
more  earnestly  to  God  for  his  gracious  assistance, 
to  enable  you  to  do  your  duty,  and  set  an  example 
of  piety  before  your  unhappy  parents. 

2.  Baptism  imposes  on  you  duties  with  respect 
to  the  church.  You  are  her  children.  As  an  affec- 
tionate and  faithful  mother,  she  is  bound  to  treat 
you,  by  instructing,  watching  over,  and  subjecting 
you  to  suitable  discipline  when  you  go  astray  from 
the  path  of  duty:  and,  consequently,  you  are  bound 
to  conduct  yourselves  as  her  sons  and  daughters,  by 
revering  her  autliority,  attending  upon  and  profit- 
ing by  the  instructions  which  she  provides  for  you, 
submitting  to  her  discipline,  and  conducting  your- 
selves in  such  a  pious  manner,  as  to  reflect  honour 
upon  her  holy  character. 

The  interest  of  the  church,  my  young  friends, 
should  lie  very  near  to  your  hearts:  and,  by  every 
means  in  your  power,  you  should  be  ready  to  pro- 
mote her  welfare.  It  is  the  duty  of  members  of 
human  societies  to  desire,  and  to  advance  their  pros- 
perity: and  surely  it  must  be  the  duty  of  members 
of  God*s  church  to  display  au  active  zeal  for  her 
prosperity:  a  society,  in  its  design  and  effects,  un- 
speakably more  important  than  auy  society  ever  in- 


•iw  Address  to  Youth.  291 

stituted  by  the  wisdom  of  man.  Let,  then,  the  wel- 
fare of  Zion  engage  your  earnest  solicitude.  Care- 
fully endeavour  to  qualify  yourselves  for  managing 
her  concerns,  in  your  several  stations:  and,  on  all 
occasions,  be  ready  to  contribute  by  your  prayers, 
your  counsels,  your  pecuniary  aid,  to  maintain  her 
influence,  to  extend  her  limits,  and  to  exalt  her 
glory.  This  is  that  heaven-born  society,  instituted 
by  infinite  wisdom  for  the  salvation  of  God's  chosen; 
at  the  head  of  which  reigns  his  own  Son,  to  which, 
angels  are  ministering  servants,  and  which  shall 
survive  the  wreck  of  states,  nations,  and  empires. 
To  be  made  instrumental  in  advancing  the  prospe- 
rity of  this  glorious  society,  is  an  honour  Avortliy 
the  ambition  of  any  mortal,  however  illustrious  by- 
birth,  or  dignified  by  title,  or  elevated  in  his  sta- 
tion. Baptized  as  members  of  the  church,  it  is  your 
duty,  remember  it,  my  young  friends,  to  qualify 
yourselves  for  filling  the  places  now  occupied  by 
your  parents,  when  they  shall  be  gathered  to  their 
fathers  in  the  dust.  The  zeal  which  ancient  saints 
discovered  for  the  interest  of  the  church,  should 
certainly  be  imitated  by  her  members  living  under 
the  new  and  better  dispensation.  "  Pray  for  the 
peace  of  Jerusalem:  they  shall  prosper  who  love 
thee.  Thy  servants  take  pleasure  in  her  stones, 
and  favour  the  dust  thereof.  If  I  forget  thee,  O 
Jerusalem,  let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning. 
If  I  do  not  remember  thee,  let  my  tongue  cleave  to 
the  roof  of  my  mouthy  if  I  prefer  not  Jerusalem 


292  LETTER   XVII. 

above  my  chief  joy."  Such  is  the  spirit  which 
should  animate  every  member  of  the  church  of  our 
exalted  Redeemer. 

Finally:  Baptism  imposes  on  you  duties  which 
respect  God.  It  binds  you  to  ratify  the  dedication 
of  yourselves  to  his  service  and  glory, — to  accept 
the  grace  of  his  promise, — and  to  lead  a  holy  and 
unblamable  life. 

Baptism  lays  you  under  obligations  to  ratify  the 
dedication  of  yourselves  to  God.  His  you  are;  and 
he  claims  you  as  such.  Justice,  gratitude,  and  self- 
interest  unite  in  requiring  you  to  recognise  his  pro- 
priety in  you,  and  unlimited  dominion  over  you,  by 
some  personal  and  explicit  act.  This  you  cannot 
refuse  to  do  witjiout  contracting  aggravated  guilt: 
for  he  has  bound  you  to  his  service  by  peculiar  ties, 
and  favoured  you  with  very  distinguishing  religious 
advantages,  by  placing  you  under  the  care  of  his 
church,  and  imposing  on  youi*  parents  solemn  obli- 
gations to  attend  carefully  to  your  Christian  educa- 
tion; ties  which  cannot  be  broken  through,  and  ad- 
vantages which  cannot  be  abused,  without  incurring 
the  guilt  of  much  presumption,  and  great  ingrati- 
tude. We,  therefore,  remind  you  of  your  duty,  and 
press  you  to  perform  it.  All  are  bound  to  love  and 
serve  the  Lord  their  Creator;  but  you  are  under  pe- 
culiar obligations.  To  live  without  God  in  the 
world,  is  in  any  rebellion  against  lawful  authority: 
but  in  you  it  is  an  aggravated  kind  of  rebellion;  re- 
bellion against  the  authority  of  Jehovah,  wlio  has 


•In  Address  to  Fotitlu  29* 

favoured  you  with  such  special  privileges,  and 
numbered  you  among  the  people  whom  he  has  sepa- 
rated from  the  world  for  his  own  worship  and  glory. 
And  will  you  act  a  part  disgraceful  to  this  holy  so- 
ciety? AVill  you  endeavour,  as  far  as  depends  on 
your  conduct,  to  frustrate  God's  design  in  forming 
his  church?  Will  you  live  in  such  conformity  to  this 
world,  that  there  shall  be  no  perceptible  difference 
between  you  and  unbaptized  youth?  "Will  you  extort, 
from  the  lips  of  unbelief,  a  question  reproachful  to 
our  Redeemer's  ordinance?— What  profit  is  there  in 
baptism?  God  forbid. 

Remember,  baptized  youth,  that  you  are  not 
your  own,  and  whose  you  are.  Be  sensible  of  the 
obligations  arising  from  baptismal  dedication  to  Je- 
hovah, and  fulfil  them.  Seal  the  dedication  of  your- 
selves to  your  covenant-God  by  a  personal  act, — by 
a  believing  and  holy  participation  of  that  Christian 
ordinance  specially  instituted  for  this  purpose.  Take 
the  consecrated  symbols  of  our  Lord's  broken  body, 
and  shed  blood;  and  thus,  by  an  appointed  seal,  ra- 
tify your  covenant-relation  to  the  Most  High.  In 
the  presence  of  the  church,  and  before  the  world, 
make  it  knoAvn,  that  you  esteem  it  a  high  privilege 
to  have  been  devoted  to  him  in  baptism,  and  that, 
by  his  grace,  you  are  determined  to  be  his  true  and 
faithful  servants,  his  holy  and  obedient  children. 

Another  duty,    arising   out  of  your  baptism, 

which  you  owe  to  God,  is,  to  accept  the  gi  ace  of 

his  promise.    Baptism,  as  stated  ia  the  preceding 
2c^ 


29*  LETTEIl    XVII. 

letters,  is  a  seal  of  Jehovah's  covenant,  certifying 
every  recipient  that,  according  to  its  tenor,  he  is 
willing  to  be  reconciled  to  him  through  Jesus  Christ, 
and  to  be  his  God  in  the  noblest  sense  of  his  pro- 
mise. The  same  invaluable  offer  is  made  to  everj 
one  w  ho  hears  the  gospel:  but  it  is  your  peculiar 
happiness  to  receive  this  all-gracious  offer  in  a  pro- 
mise of  that  covenant  which  has  been  sealed  to  you 
by  a  visible  sign.  Already  has  Jevovah  taken  you 
into  a  special  external  relation  to  himself,  and  con- 
descended to  style  himself  your  God:  and  he  nowin- 
vites  and  presses  you  to  receive  his  proffered  grace, 
presented  in  a  way  calculated  to  destroy  every 
doubt  with  respect  to  his  sincerity,  that  he  may  be 
your  God,  in  a  nobler  sense,  by  dwelling  in  you,  and 
you  in  him.  It  must,  then,  be  your  duty,  as  it  cer- 
tainly is  your  inestimable  privilege,  cordially  and 
thankfully  to  accept  this  all-gracious  offer;  an  offer 
which  you  cannot  refuse  without  contracting  the 
guilt  of  most  offensive  disobedience  to  the  divine 
will,  signified  in  a  manner  the  most  condescending 
and  persuasive,  nor  without  sacrificing  your  own 
best  and  eternal  interests. 

Be  not,  my  young  friends,  contented  with  that 
external  relation  to  God  which  you  sustain,  and 
wiih  wearing  the  signature  of  his  property.  To 
imagine  that  baptism  and  its  attending  privileges 
Avill  save  you,  would  be  to  indulge  a  hope  the  most 
deceptive  and  ruinous.  "  Circumcision  verily  pro- 
fiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law^  but  if  thou  be  a  breaker 


Jin  Address  to  routh.  295 

of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncircumci^ 
sion."  The  Jews,  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  true 
religion,  boasted  of  being  descended  from  Abraham, 
and  of  wearing  in  their  flesh  the  mark  of  God's  co- 
venant-people; and  concluded,  that  the  special  pri- 
vileges bestowed  on  them  secured  to  them  divine 
favour  and  future  happiness.  A  fatal  mistake!  for 
privileges,  not  improved,  but  abused,  instead  of  pro- 
curing safety,  increase  guilt,  and  occasion  ruin. 
This  prevalent  error,  John,  our  Redeemer's  fore- 
runner, exposed;  and  warned  his  countrymen  of  its 
destructive  consequences.  '<  Think  not  to  say  with- 
in yourselves,  "We  have  Abraham  to  our  father:  for 
I  say  unto  you,  That  God  is  able  of  these  stones  to 
raise  up  children  unto  Abraham.  And  now  also  the 
axe  is  laid  unto  the  root  of  the  trees;  therefore,  every 
tree  which  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit,  is  hewn 
down  and  cast  into  the  fire.'*  Unbelief  brought 
upon  the  Jews  the  displeasure  of  Almighty  God;  it 
was  the  cause  of  their  excommunication  from  his 
church:  and  the  tremendous  judgments  of  heaven 
upon  this  unhappy  people,  formerly  so  highly  favour- 
ed, proclaim  to  the  world  how  criminal  and  dan- 
gerous it  is  to  misimprove  distinguishing  religious 
privileges. 

This  Jewish  error,  it  is  to  be  feared,  is  adopted  by 
many  nominal  Christians.  They  rely  on  their  de- 
scent from  pious  parents,  their  infant  baptism,  and 
their  connexion  with  the  church,  as  a  security 
against  deserved  puDii»hmeat;  alihough  their  con- 


296  lETTER  XVII. 

ducti^  unworthy  of  the  name  by  which  they  are  cal- 
led, and  inconsistent  with  the  obligations  imposed 
on  them  by  their  baptism.  Vain  refuge!  They  sin 
against  superior  light,  and  special  advantages  for 
religious  improvement:  and  shall  augmented  guilt 
plead  for  their  pardon  and  salvation?  Your  external 
privileges,  baptized  youth,  will,  unless  you  repent, 
afford  you  no  shelter  from  the  wrath  of  Almighty 
God:  and,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  you  will  find  your 
descent  from  pious  parents  and  your  infant  baptism 
serve  no  other  purpose,  than  to  make  his  indignation 
wax  hotter  against  you. 

Would  you  stand  with  boldness  before  his  awful 
tribunal?  You  must  rest  your  hopes  on  a  better  foun- 
dation than  external  privileges;  you  must  be  wash- 
ed in  the  laver  of  regeneration,  and  be  clothed  with 
the  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ.  <*  For  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink;  but  righteous- 
ness, and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
essence  of  religion  consists,  not  in  outward  ceremo- 
nies or  forms,  but  in  those  inward  graces  which  are 
wrought  in  the  soul  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Hence, 
the  apostles  declares  this  important  truth,  worthy  of 
your  most  serious  consideration:  <*  In  Christ  Jesus, 
neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncir- 
cumcision,  but  a  new  creature." 

With  affectionate  desires  for  your  salvation,  I 
beseech  you  not  to  rest  in  any  external  privileges, 
but  to  seek  the  enjoyment  of  the  saving  blessings  of 
the  covenant.    Let  the  honourable  relation  which 


An  Address  to  routh.  297 

you  sustain  to  Jehovah,  he  the  means  of  leadmg  you 
to  that  near  spiritual  union  to  him,  >yhieh  will  make 
him  your  God  in  the  highest  sense  of  his  promise. 
What  a  dreadful  misfortune  would  it  he,  if,  after 
having  been  in  covenant  with  him,  you  sliould  he 
finally  rejected  by  him!  if,  after  having  enjoyed  the 
honour  of  being  called  the  children  of  his  kingdom, 
you  should  be  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven! 
if,  after  having  had  sealed  offers  of  salvation,  you 
should  fall  under  the  sentence  of  everlasting  damna- 
tion! From  the  depths  of  hell,  you  would  then  look 
back  to  this  world,  with  inexpressible  anguish:  and 
the  recollection  of  the  state  so  favourable  to  your 
salvation  in  which  you  are  now  placed,  and  the  re- 
peated offers  of  mercy  now  made  to  you,  would  be 
in  you  a  worm  that  never  dies,  and  a  fire  which  is 
never  quenched. 

This  the  scriptures  assure  us  Avill  be  the  terri- 
ble condition  of  sinners  who  abuse  their  covenant- 
privileges,  and  finally  perish.  Believing  the  testi- 
mony of  God  in  his  word,  it  would  be  unfaithfulness 
to  him  and  cruel  tenderness  to  you,  were  we  not  to 
set  the  danger  before  your  eyes,  and  urge  you  to  flee 
from  it.  "  Knowing,  therefore,  the  terrors  of  the 
Lord,  Ave  persuade  men."  By  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  God  to  judge  the  world, — by  the  unavailing 
cries  of  tliose  who  shall  then  be  found  unprepared 
to  meet  him, — by  the  awful  solemnities  of  the  final 
day, — and  by  the  eternal  miseries  of  the  wicked,  we 
affectionately  beseech  you  to  seek  the  saving  grace 


298  LETTER   XVn. 

of  God,  that  you  may  stand  with  acceptance  before 
his  august  tribunal. 

Having  pointed  out  your  danger,  we  would  al- 
lure and  captivate  your  hearts,  by  exhibiting  the 
rich  and  everlasting  mercies  of  God  contained  in 
his  covenant.  The  design  of  the  covenant  is  thus 
expressed:  «  To  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed!  What  a  glorious  promise!  Did  you  ever  weigh 
its  meaning?  Did  you  ever  reflect  what  it  is  to  have 
Jehovah  for  your  God  in  the  subliniest  sense  of  his 
promise?  In  this  relation  are  comprehended  heaven 
and  all  its  glories.  The  treasure  is  so  immense, 
that  an  angel  from  paradise  could  not  tell  you  its 
value:  the  blessings  are  so  vast,  that  eternity  alone 
can  display  them.  And  who  can  make  light  of  such 
a  promise?  Can  you  refuse  blessings  which,  as  sin- 
ful and  immortal  beings,  you  so  much  need?  the 
pardon  of  all  your  sins,  the  renovation  of  your 
nature,  the  justification  of  your  persons,  adoption 
into  the  family  of  the  Most  High,  a  title  to  a  hea- 
venly inheritance?  Can  you  refuse  blessings,  which, 
being  accepted,  will  heighten  the  enjoyments,  as 
well  as  sweeten  the  bitterness  of  life, — soften  the  bed 
of  death,— shed  the  light  of  hope  upon  your  tomb, — - 
open  to  you  the  gates  of  paradise, — and  last  while 
your  being  lasts? 

Reflect,  my  young  friends,  on  the  inestimable 
value  of  this  sealed  promise;  and  let  not  the  perish- 
ing vanities  of  tlie  world  induce  you  to  slight  and  re- 
ject the  iafinitely  condescending  offers  of  your  co- 


ain  Mdress  to  Toi/fh.  299 

Tenant  God.  With  a  tender  solicitude  for  your  sal- 
vation, he  presses  you  to  accept  them.  O  turn  not 
away  from  his  mercy,  which  waits  patiently  on  you, 
and  seems  unwilling  to  give  up  to  perdition.  Pro- 
fit by  that  signal  privilege,  your  infant  baptism. 
Accept  the  grace  which  it  seals.  Lay  hold,  by  faith, 
on  the  grand  covenant-promise,  that  Jehovah  may 
be  indeed  your  God,  and  you  his  spiritual  children. 
Finally:  Baptism,  my  young  friends,  imposes 
on  you  the  duty  of  leading  a  holy  and  an  unblamable 
life.  The  grand,  comprehensive  injunction  of  the 
covenant  is,  <«  Walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  per- 
fect." You  are  solemnly  bound  to  live  as  Jehovah's 
peculiar  people;  and,  by  yielding  a  sincere,  hum- 
ble, universal,  constant,  and  growing  obedience  to 
his  commandments,  to  testify  your  gratitude  for  his 
marvellous  and  distinguishing  kindness.  It  is  in- 
deed a  truth  never  to  be  forgotten,  that  the  blessings 
of  salvation  are  freely  offered,  and  freely  to  be  ac- 
cepted. Let  not,  however,  the  imagination  enter 
your  minds,  that  the  freeness  of  divine  grace  re- 
leases us  from  obligatiens  to  obey  our  Creator's 
will.  Our  obligation  to  punishment,  and  our  obliga- 
tion to  keep  the  law  with  a  view  to  merit  eternal  life, 
it  does  indeed  cancel:  but  the  requirements  of  the  law, 
as  a  rule  of  life,  it  diminishes  in  no  degree;  and, 
instead  of  exempting  us  from  them,  it  increases  our 
obligations  to  obedience.  While,  therefore,  you  re- 
ceive, with  a  thankrjil  heart,  the  free  grace  of  God, 
yield,  as  a  tribute  of  honor  due  to  his  Majesty  from 


300  LETTER   XVII. 

all  his  creatures,  and  as  a  testimony  of  gratitude 
justly  demanded  by  him  from  redeemed  sinners,  sin- 
cere and  growing  obedience  to  his  good  and  right- 
eous commandments.  Remember  that  it  is  written, 
^*  Without  lioliiiess  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord." 

Often  recall  to  mind  the  obligations  resulting 
from  baptism,  the  seal  of  Jehovah's  covenant.  En- 
deavour to  awaken  those  active  principles  of  obedi- 
ence, gratitude  and  love,  by  meditating  in  a  strain 
like  the  following:  How  interesting  that  transac- 
tion, when  my  parents  dedicated  me  an  infant  to 
their  God  and  my  God!  Then  the  Most  High  con- 
descended to  take  notice  of  me,  by  nature  **  a  child 
of  wrath."  Then  he  admitted  me  as  a  member  of 
his  visible  church,  numbered  me  as  one  of  his  fa- 
mily, and  sealed  me  as  his  peculiar  property.  He 
has  made  to  me  a  tender  of  all  saving  blessings: 
and,  by  baptism,  he  has,  from  my  earliest  days, 
certified  me  of  his  readiness  to  become  my  God 
in  the  fullest  and  noblest  sense  of  liis  promise.  A- 
mazing  condescension  of  the  King  of  Glory  to  a 
worm  of  the  dust!  Wonderful  grace  of  a  holy  and 
just  God  to  an  apostate  rebel!  What  fervent  love, 
what  lively  gratitude  to  liim,  should  reign  in  mj 
heart!  What  shall  f  render  unto  the  Lord  for  bis 
marvellous  kindness?  W  ill  he  deign  to  accept  the 
poor,  defective  returns  of  love  and  obedience,  wliich, 
by  his  grace,  I  may  be  enabled  to  make?  Then  let 
me  I'cnounce  every  false  way,  and  endeavour  to  walk 
in  all  his  commandments  and  ordinances  blamelessly. 


Jin  Mdress  to  routh.  301 

Be  it  my  great  business  to  do  liis  will,  and  approve 
myself  in  his  siglit. 

But,  before  I  finish  this  address,  let  me  remind 
you,  my  young  friends,  that  new  obedience  implies 
a  new  heart.  The  heart  is  the  fountain  of  action. 
Actions  are,  in  the  sight  of  God,  good  or  bad,  ac- 
cording to  the  intention  or  principle  from  which 
they  proceed.  Man  looks  on  the  outward  appear- 
ance; and  if  this  be  fair,  he  will  approve  of  your 
character:  but  God,  remember,  looks  on  the  heart, 
and  demands  truth,  integrity  in  the  inward  parts. 
Love  to  your  Creator  is  the  great  principle  of  obe- 
dience on  which  his  law  insists.  This  wanting,  your 
life,  how  usefully  and  honourably  soever  it  may  be 
spent,  will  not  be  acceptable  to  God.  And  this 
great,  necessary  principle  is  wanting  in  every  unre- 
newed  person.  <*  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
God. — They  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please 
God."* 

Your  first  duty,  then,  is  to  endeavour  to  obtain 
a  new  heart,  as  the  necessary  principle  of  evange- 
lical obedience.  Enslaved  by  sin,  you  certainly  are 
unable  to  renew  your  own  heart,  and  create  love 
where  enmity  has  hitherto  existed.  But  never  in- 
dulge the  imagination,  that  this  inability  can  dis- 
charge you  from  obligation  to  perform  a  most  im- 
portant and  essential  duty:  because  this  inability 
was  induced  by  man's  wilful  apostasy  from  God,  and 
is  itself  the  great  sin  of  our  race,  and  the  parent  of 

*  Rom.  viii.  7,  8. 
3D 


302  LETTER  XVII. 

all  other  sins.  This  lamentable  truth,  that  you  are 
unable,  owing  to  deep  depravity  of  nature,  to  cre- 
ate in  yourselves  a  new  heart,  you  should  duly  re- 
alize, confess,  and  bewail.  But  let  uot  a  sense  of 
native  weakness  discourage  you  in  seeking  this  great 
and  necessary  change:  for  God,  in  boundless  mercy, 
has  promised  to  bestow  it  on  sinners,  and  is  daily 
fulfilling  his  promise.  AVhile,  therefore,  you  ac- 
knowledge your  duty,  and  confess  your  inability  to 
perform  it,  as  your  crime,  seek  Irom  God,  in  the 
use  of  appointed  means,  the  renewing  and  sanctify- 
ing influences  of  his  Holy  Spirit.  Plead  the  cove- 
nant-promise on  this  subject,^^  and  intreat  the  Lord 
to  fulfil  it  to  you.  Plead  with  all  the  importunity 
of  perishing  sinners  fur  a  new  heart,  and  a  new  spi- 
rit:— for  grace  to  walk  worthy  of  your  higli  voca- 
tion, and  to  fuliil  the  duties  imposed  by  your  infant 
baptism. 

And  that  God  may  incline  your  hearts  t;*  keep 
his  commandments,  make  you  comforts  to  your  pa- 
rents, useful  in  the  world,  and  ornaments  to  the 
church;  and'that,  when,  by  his  grace,  you  shall  have 
done  his  will  on  earth,  he  may  send  his  holy  angels 
to  carry  you  to  tlie  bosom  of  your  father  Abraham, 
and  to  the  blissful  society  of  the  sons  of  God,  is  the 
prayer  of 

Your  sincere  friend, 

And  affectionate  pastor, 

JACOB  J.  JANEWAY. 

*  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25—27.  Gal.  iii.  H. 


■'S^ 


d 


m{ ,.  \^^ 


n;m-^r^.^^-^^^^^:mm-:^^ 


* 


f^''  ■■■  '.^^Sf 


-«v> 


'm^ 


^heotogic 


1101201021   3769 


